Seattlest: Can The Times Sink Any Lower?

Jeremy M. Barker

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:23:45 -0800

I actually have to sort of agree with both: upon re-reading Postman's article, I can see his point that he was actually offering a criticism (or perhaps he would prefer critique) of Reichert's comments. Unfortunately, I would have to say he did so in an extremely confusing manner. First, he contextualizes the quote, which apparently he agrees does not make it sound any better, nor changes or alters its meaning. In short, Reichert and the Republican leadership manage voting to ensure the party's continued dominance while tossing morsels to the voters back home. Then Postman goes on the accuse Democrats of the same thing. This too is true. But ultimately, what was the analysis then? That Reichert's not a moderate? That he is a moderate but votes conservative when he's told to? What is actually added here? Why use "pragmatism" in a negative context, rather than "pandering"? And then what's the ending bit about Schiavo? Isn't Reichert's vote in that context exactly the sort of triangulated vote meant to appease the folks back home? The entire Schiavo fiasco was politicking at its worst; it gave the right-wingers a chance to burnish their Christian conservative credentials, the "moderates" the chance to show their independence, and everyone's chance to blame Democrats for creating a culture of death. Does Postman really believe that Reichert's vote was a courageous one? It was a situation in which everyone would win on the local level no matter what they did; they only looked like idiots nationally, and strangely that's unlikely to hurt them. Finally, I brought up what I believe is a valid point about so-called moderate Republicans this election, in the New Republic quote. Postman doesn't respond to that criticism of "ideological" moderates (I guess I can see one being "ideological" about being a moderate, but that seems a little contradictory doesn't it?). In the end, if I got Postman's analysis wrong, then maybe he's the one who needs to clarify what he's actually trying to say.

MvB

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:53:07 -0800

I don't know, Postman. I read the column to check on your grievance, and while I don't think it's "damning" that someone who runs as a Republican or Democrat takes into account the party's interests, your analysis is a bit fuzzy. The labels pragmatist, centrist, and moderate all point in different directions. Even from Reichert's full quote, it sounds like he's saying that he's happy to vote in line with "Republican ideals" and occasionally votes on principle. So he may be willing to moderate hardline Republican ideology. Good enough. But that doesn't make him a centrist in the local political landscape (does it?), and pragmatism is context-dependent: in the service of what goal? Here, his pragmatism seems to be that to serve the party, he sometimes has to vote against it (to keep his seat). That's still not centrism. It's the use of centrist moves as feints.

Postman

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:13:55 -0800

Jeremy, what makes you think what I wrote was intended to defend Reichert? You say that after reading the column, "Actually, that still sounds damning." So maybe it wasn't supposed to be a defense? And you think writing "Reichert's centrism is pragmatism, not ideology" is a defense of his comments? To say that Evans and others talk about centrism as a belief, and not to keep Republicans in power, is a defense of Reichert? As a blog-like guy these days I'm getting used to being attacked. Seattlest seems to enjoy poking fun at me, which I generally take as an honor. But I think you misread my column and let your obvious hatred for The Times cloud your reasoning. It was neither a defense nor an attack on Reichert. It was an attempt to analyze his comments, which at points were a bit rambling. And to think I came to Seattlest just now for a little recreational reading ...