I don't consider myself much of a centrist, but other people on this site often do, and I can understand why. I respect a lot of centrists, especially those who are not part of the Anti-Left Party (comprising Republicans and a good swath of conservative and moderate Democrats.)
That is, I respect people who are open to the possibility that those who are liberal or radical may have a point. I respect those who recognize that in 20th-century history such people initially made most of the points that led to social institutions that are taken for granted today. They may still choose to outvote us on policy reasons sometimes or often, but such people value what we bring to the table and recognize that we are a constituency that, like others, needs to be fed. Many of these people are also political experts who have a good sense of how far we can go, how much we can squeeze out of a piece of legislation, and their expertise has got to inform positions on the Left. (I don't hear people saying to vote down health care reform because it leaves the Hyde Amendment in place.)
I can live with centrism. What I despise is treachery.
Update: 8ackgr0und N015e had a good diary today on this earlier today. He's more sure than I am.
Rahm Emanuel was famously the model for Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman on The West Wing -- the alternative universe show where Martin Sheen as Jeb Bartlet as Bill Clinton was as good as we had all hoped Bill Clinton would be -- which I'm sure had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that his brother (himself the model for Ari the Agent in Entourage) is one of the most powerful men in Hollywood.
Josh Lyman -- deftly played by Bradley Whitford as a man completely dedicated to his party and his craft and his administration -- was monomaniacal and abrasive and unyielding and somewhat socially awkward, but also brilliant and honorable and hard-working and way deep down had a heart of gold (alloyed with some other metals.) Josh Lyman tended to be on the centrist side, aware of the politics of every situation, so long as they did not involve the advantages of himself playing it cool and shutting up. I suspect that the portrayal of Josh Lyman pleased and flattered Rahm Emanuel very much; I expect that it largely reflected his self-image.
Among the things that Josh Lyman was not was ... pardon the expression ... a motherfucking snake in the grass.
When I read of yet a second story from the Washington Post pushing the notion that the failures of the Obama Administration are due to the rubes from the campaign preventing Obama from listening to the sage and moderate advice of Rahm Emanuel, I originally thought about writing a short teleplay in which Josh Lyman did what Rahm Emanuel sure looks like he's doing now, taking as his targets perhaps Communications Director Toby Ziegler (Richard Schiff) and his deputy Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe) and, hell, maybe even C.J. Cregg (Allison Janney) and Leo McGarrey (John Spencer) as well. I decided it wasn't worth the effort. If you try to superimpose these articles on the template of the West Wing, you'll find that the image of the show implodes. It simply can't be done. Does not compute.
But we could imagine a show in which some enterprising Dana Milbank-like columnist wrote a story claiming that, at a critical legislative moment, Josh Lyman was blaming his co-stars for the failure of the Administration. What would Josh Lyman do in that script? He would go bonkers. He would be mortified, for one thing, that there had been a leak, to the extent that the reporting had any basis in fact. He would be ashamed if he had spilled the beans to anyone at all. He would be angry -- incensed -- that the reporter had the temerity to call the Bartlet Administration a failure, and he would be on every show beating down that allegation, denying any daylight between him and the other advisors, and would adopt the others' position as his own if necessary to make the point. He would not allow a single dandelion in the fertile field of the reporters portrait of the Administration to stand.
What has Emanuel done since the Milbank column came out? I don't really know, but I keep a fair eye on the news and I don't remember anything like that. (Maybe one of you will correct me.) Instead, it is as if Emanuel, with an eye towards the future and his reputation and the core belief that anyone who tries to fight the good fight under adversity rather than buckling under and sucking the other sides' ... toes ... if they demand it is a goddamned traitor to the cause.
But perhaps I'm asking too much. Perhaps President Bartlet asks Josh Lyman to sit tight and let it blow over. Then imagine that the Washington Post does it again, in a news article, just over a week later. Does Lyman still sit tight? Does Bartlet let Lyman sit tight? It's forming a damaging perception. Should not Lyman, as Emanuel famously did, have a dead fish delivered to the offender to express his views? Yes, one would think so.
Well, I checked the New York Times site today and all I see about Emanuel's blowing his stack over this is cricket dung. On HuffPo, you do find a wonderful column from Dan Froomkin debunking the lesser Post's story on the merits, but that's not my concern: my concern is why Rahm is not egging the Washington Post building as I speak, if he's upset. If he's upset.
Emanuel has his defenders here, I realize. Some of them think that critics are upset over his policies; as I've said, I may disagree, but I can abide them. I hate when anyone on a team is so certain of the future that they think that those who disagree are imbeciles; in my experience, such people tend, among other things, to be far too willing to forgive their own errors. I think that Emanuel is, like many political actors and consultants and analysts, nowhere near as smart as he things he is -- but that's no crime. Some swagger is necessary in politics and I have been known to indulge myself.
Politics operates largely by radar. Back in the primary wars, I felt that I had hinky readings on all of the major candidates, but when it came down to Obama and Clinton my intuition, for lack of a better word, told me that Obama would be the better choice. I know that many of my friends here did and probably still do disagree. I can't argue that with them. This is a matter, again, of radar, of unclear and fleeting images outside of our normal sensory perceptions, and reasonable people can disagree.
I have to tell you one thing, though: when the Milbank story hit and Emanuel just basically stayed in his cage -- not a leak of his wanting to rip off Milbank's fool head and crap into his body cavity, not even on the self-serving grounds that it was making it harder to get along with his colleagues -- I was astounded. I wasn't convinced that Emanuel would be gone, but it seemed likely to me that he should be. And then today, my radar screen went white. It happened again -- and has anyone heard Rahm say A SINGLE WORD to spike these stories?
Not so far as I can tell. Here's what's on Google News -- from a Fox News story:
On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was compelled for the first time to respond to the chatter. He said the president "absolutely" has confidence in his chief of staff, and he dismissed speculation of a rift between the two as part of the usual lineup of Washington "parlor games" -- which he suggested were being played out of sheer boredom in the vacuum of the football off-season.
"Anybody that works in or around this building knows that there's nobody working harder on passing the president's agenda than the chief of staff," Gibbs said.
Asked whether Emanuel was "burnishing his reputation" via the press at everybody else's expense, Gibbs responded, "I don't believe he is, no."
That's right: Rahm's response is -- the White House has to reconfirm how trusted Rahm is. Beyond that: very little.
At the time that the Presidency was under attack, Rahm Emanuel covered his exposed body with the friendly form of Robert Gibbs, one of those whom he was accused of slagging, who today more than earned his pay. My radar screen says: Snake in the Grass. Treachery. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with what I think I know about health care policy. It has to do with what I think I know about humanity -- and who's just in it for themselves.