January 22, 2007
With his approval rating at 33% , and only 26% of Americans convinced the country is heading in the right direction (who are those people?), President Bush will inevitably turn to the only cynical strategy he has left: triangulation.
But what is "triangulation" exactly? Dick Morris has the answer.
Many progressives mistakenly assume that triangulation is just a technique used by politicians in interviews. No doubt it is that, but the more pernicious concept is no less than a total theory of political strategy developed by Dick Morris--former political adviser to Trent Lott and Bill Clinton. Morris writes about triangulation all over the place, but I have found the clearest definition on page 90 of his book Power Plays:
The idea behind triangulation is to work hard to solve the problems that motivate the other party's voters, so as to defang them politically. If you are a Democrat, balance the budget, reform welfare, cut ccrime, and watch voters flee the GOP. If you are a Republican, improve education, lower poverty, and watch your ranks swell...
the essence of triangulation is to use your party's solutions to solve the other side's problems.
(Power Plays , p. 90-91)
Morris may be a sniveling and disloyal scumbag who has sold his soul to FOX News--but he is not stupid. Behind the idea of "triangulation" is a powerful framing of the very idea of political strategy. Morris' concept takes a very basic idea that political positions can be arranged on a line, and he then turns that linear conception into geometry. His explanation of "triangulation" can thus be understand by everyone:
The triangle in question is equilateral, with the apex suspended over the middle of the base. Triangulation involves using the solutions of both parties to solve each new problem. It involves adopting what is best from each party and formulating a third approach that discards the failed solutions and embraces those that work...
This synthesis of the best in each party's agenda amounts to more than a bisection, a splitting of the ideological difference. Triangulation does not call for a line split in half. It traces a path in which the best of each party comes together in a place higher and better than either would reach on its own.
(Power Plays , p.91)
Even if you failed geometry, so long as you once played with blocks in nursery school you can understand what Morris is saying. But just to be sure, he sums it up in terms of "the three principles of triangulation":
1. Solve the other side's problems. 2. Use solutions from both parties to do so. 3. Continue to focus on your own issue agenda.
(Power Plays , p.92)
Fromm all this we arrive at the magic word that has taken the political world by storm in the last few months:
the center
Ultimately, in other words, "triangulation" is a theory of political methodology rooted in a broad framing logic that posits the highest value political position as something called "center." Quoting Lao-tzu, Morris writes [emphasis mine]:
In the Tao of Power, Lao-tzu writes that "to hold to the center is to listen to the voice of the inner mind." In their "inner minds," Americans come to certain conclusions as they witness the swirling political debate around them. Triangulation, as a methodology,it involves a move to to the center. As an ideology, it calls for turning down the volume of one's own ideas and listening, instead, to the voice of the "inner minds" of one's nation.
Fascinating. For starters, I would argue that this tactic--Morris' appropriation of Lao-tzu towards the development of "triangulation" is the source definition of "the center" in contemporary politics. The "center" is believed by those who strive for it to be located not on some list of policy positions or ideological scale, but on the rejection of those artifices in favor of listening to the "inner voice" of the nation. But more importantly, perhaps, Morris defines what he describes a tactical fox to a failed politics stalled by debate, and a road map back into successful, solutions-driven leadership. While Morris extols Bush as having been a textbook campaign triangulator, he lambastes him for giving up triangulation of late in favor of either ideologically driven tactics, or even worse--apathy altogether. In a 2006 article called "Reviving the Bush Presidency," Morris wrote:
The answers to his problems are not to be found in Iraq. The war certainly demands much of his time and energy, but even success in stabilizing the situation there won't make Iraq a political asset. But a president can always change the national agenda. The obvious places to start are Iran and North Korea, whose nuclear threats dwarf even Iraq in importance. If Iran gets the bomb, it gains not only the power to make good on its talk of wiping Israel off the map, but also greater ability to bully the entire Middle East. Politically, the effort to curb Iranian nuclear ambitions and a high-profile push to get North Korea to destroy its nuclear arsenal will put Bush in a game he can win - one in which he still has plentiful options...
Diplomacy alone lacks credibility: Threats of a cutoff of purchases of Iranian oil and of direct military action are a must. The president should open talks with oil-consuming nations, too, pointing toward cutbacks in the purchase of Iranian oil. Japan - Iran's top customer - has already cut its purchase of Iranian oil by 15 percent to protest Tehran's nuclear plans. The president should call for disinvestment in companies that invest in terror-sponsoring nations. Frank Gaffney, the former Reagan-era Pentagon official, has shown the way through his group disinvestterror.org - he's persuaded UBS and Credit Suisse to stop investing in companies that do business in Iran or North Korea. Sarah Steelman, Missouri's state treasurer, has indicated she'll do likewise with the pension funds she controls. Bush should order the federal government to follow suit - indeed, push for a national and global disinvestment campaign. Domestically, Bush should emulate Clinton in doing all he can do via executive action - issuing executive orders to advance his agenda and making public proposals on a range of issues, even if they're outside the normal purview of presidential action.
("Reviving the Bush Presidency," Dec. 16, 2006)
My point, here, is not to claim that Morris is some kind of soothsayer with his advice to Bush about turning towards Iran. The key point in this 2006 essay was that Bush should "emulate Clinton"--what Morris claims Bush had done in 2000 when he was first elected. In other words, after 6 years of ideology and division, if Bush wants to revive his presidency, he needs to return to his old friend: triangulation. And so, we arrive at what will inevitably be the Bush strategy in his State of the Union Address tomorrow. But before we get there, we need to remember that by triangulating, Bush will be trying to "solve the other side's problems"--which means our side. Here is a quote from Bill Clinton's 1999 State of the Union Address, arguably as good description of "our side" as any other that I have been able to find:
My fellow Americans, I stand before you tonight to report that the state of our Union is strong. Now, America is working again.
The promise of our future is limitless. But we cannot realize that promise if we allow the hum of our prosperity to lull us into complacency. How we fare as a nation far into the 21st century depends upon what we do as a nation today. So with our budget surplus growing, our economy expanding, our confidence rising, now is the moment for this generation to meet our historic responsibility to the 21st century. Our fiscal discipline gives us an unsurpassed opportunity to address a remarkable new challenge, the aging of America. With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a senior boom. So first, and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century...
Second, once we have saved Social Security, we must fulfill our obligation to save and improve Medicare. Already, we have extended the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by 10 years, but we should extend it for at least another decade. Tonight, I propose that we use one out of every $6 in the surplus for the next 15 years to guarantee the soundness of Medicare until the year 2020...
Third, we must help all Americans, from their first day on the job to save, to invest, to create wealth. From its beginning, Americans have supplemented Social Security with private pensions and savings. Yet, today, millions of people retire with little to live on other than Social Security. Americans living longer than ever simply must save more than ever...
Fourth, we must invest in long-term care. I propose a tax credit of $1,000 for the aged, ailing or disabled, and the families who care for them. Long-term care will become a bigger and bigger challenge with the aging of America, and we must do more to help our families deal with it... With our support, nearly every State has set higher academic standards for public schools, and a voluntary national test is being developed to measure the progress of our students...
America's families deserve the world's best medical care. Thanks to bipartisan Federal support for medical research, we are now on the verge of new treatments to prevent or delay diseases from Parkinson's to Alzheimer's, to arthritis to cancer. But as we continue our advances in medical science, we can't let our medical system lag behind. Managed care has literally transformed medicine in America, driving down costs but threatening to drive down quality as well...
Now, if we act in these areas—minimum wage, family leave, child care, health care, the safety of our children—then we will begin to meet our generation's historic responsibilities to strengthen our families for the 21st century.
Now, arguably Clinton was not fighting a war abroad at this point, but the impeachment hearings were pretty much a war at home. And in this environment, Clinton locked on to the method of triangulation. To be perfectly clear, I stand behind many of Clinton's proposals in the 1999 State of the Union. As Morris explains carefully, one should confuse triangulation as a method with the wholesale adoption of the oppositions views. By 1999, Clinton's version of triangulation was fueled by massive deficit reduction--a U.S. government that was steering into a surplus for the first time in ages. So triangulation was not the product of Clinton's policies not working, but simply a strategy to "defang" the opposition in a time when the country was full of fangs all hungry for Clinton. Fiscal discipline, fixing social security, personal investment, affordable health care, accountability in education--a cursory reading of these proposals nowadays makes Clinton's list look downright, well, triangular. Of course, when we read the details, we see that Clinton was actually solving the problems with our tools...mostly. But he was triangulating alright. Let's turn, then, to Bush's latest Radio Address to see if we can spot any of the tell tale signs of triangulation [emphasis mine]:
Americans are fortunate to have the best health care system in the world. The government has an important role to play in our system. We have an obligation to provide care for the most vulnerable members of our society -- the elderly, the disabled, and poor children and their parents. We are meeting this responsibility through Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. We must strengthen these vital programs so that they are around when future generations need them.
For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. But rising health care costs are making insurance too expensive for millions of our citizens. Health care costs are growing more than two times faster than wages, and this is making it harder for working families to buy insurance on their own. Rising costs are also making it harder for small businesses to offer health coverage to their employees. Our challenge is clear: We must address these rising costs, so that more Americans can afford basic health insurance. And we need to do it without creating a new Federal entitlement program or raising taxes.
Our Nation is making progress toward this goal. We created Health Savings Accounts, which empower patients and can reduce the cost of coverage. We are working to pass Association Health Plans, so that small businesses can insure their workers at the favorable discounts that big businesses get. We must pass medical liability reform, so we can stop the junk lawsuits that drive costs through the roof and good doctors out of practice. We've taken important steps to increase transparency in health care pricing, and give patients more information about the quality of their doctors and hospitals.
One of the most promising ways to make private health insurance more affordable is by reforming the Federal tax code. Today, the tax code unfairly penalizes people who do not get health insurance through their job. It unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.
We need to fix these problems, and one way to do so is to treat health insurance more like home ownership. The current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance. So in my State of the Union Address next Tuesday, I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private health insurance more affordable -- whether you get it through your job or on your own.
Wow. Bush is absolutely channeling c. 1999 Clinton in what appears to be an effort to revive his Presidency through triangulation. Affordable health care, a larger government role to help solve problems, empowering states to help lower health care costs--and that telltale Clintonian refrain: "the best health care system in the world."
MMMOOOORRRRRISSSS!!!!
The "triangulation" frame for understanding political strategy has once again captured the imagination and the common sense of an embattled Presidency. Of course, there's plenty more framing in the triangulation, and this is what makes it so difficult to unpack. But the first step is seeing the geometry.
© 2007 Jeffrey Feldman : jeffrey@frameshopisopen.com, Frameshop,
No comments:
Post a Comment