Attention Media Moderates: Left Face!

One of the interesting features of contemporary American politics is the lack of a functional center. Before Katrina, there was a center-right consensus in the mainstream media that Bush was an appealing guy and his administration filled with interesting characters, that Karl Rove was outplaying the Democrats at the political game, and that the invasion of Iraq was certainly appropriate if not downright noble. Even though most of them were registered Democrats, media members did not like the Clintons, Al Gore, Hillary's health care plan, or the Lewinsky scandal. And they liked the anti-war zealots, anti-corporate warriors, and good government critics of the Bush administration even less. The Bush crowd might have been dogmatic and partisan but they had an aura of victory and strength while their opponents seemed like so many whiners and losers.

The Bush administration's troubles have been almost as big a problem for columnists like David Broder and Thomas Friedman, major television personalities like Chris Matthews, and the White House press corps as they've been for Bush himself. Now that President Bush has been discredited and Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales have become targets of public loathing, consensus moderates are at a loss. If the Bush administration is not credible, how can people like David Broder pose the subtle questions, make calls for compromise, and explore the larger perspectives that are the basic coin of their writing?

And what else can moderates do? They have no instinct for carrying the Bush administration's water in the manner of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. But they don't want to be full time opponents like the Paul Krugmans and Michael Moores who they saw as being scarcely better than the right-wing blowhards. Where is the moderation in crudely taking sides? Where is the subtle weighing of fine distinctions that they value in themselves as political observers? Where is the sense of unity and common purpose that moderates see themselves as creating?

Ironically, it turned out that prominent media moderates were dependent on the success of the George Bush for much of their coherence and standing. Now that the Bush administration is almost universally thought of as a failure, the media moderates no longer have a political agenda to advance, have little role in public debate, and are themselves becoming the targets of ridicule. David Broder's Washington Post columns are now met with almost as much derision and scorn as pronouncements from Dick Cheney's bunker. So has the well-known columnist Joe Klein of Time magazine. Likewise, liberal bloggers measure the war in term of "Friedman units" as a way to make fun of Thomas Friedman's repeated invocations to give the war "just six more months." By that measure, Bush's surge policy has been in effect for one "Friedman unit" with the Bush administration trying to ensure that American troops will be in Iraq for endless Friedman units.

There isn't much room for center-right moderates to manuever. In February, Broder hopefully predicted a comeback by President Bush because he supposed there was evidence of Bush being willing to compromise with the Democrats. That proved to be far from the case and almost half of the public now wants to see impeachment proceedings initiated against the president (with a majority wanting to see Cheney impeached). Another moderate op-ed writer, David Ignatius, wonders if the climate of intense partisanship is harming America's ability to either prevent or respond to another major terrorist attack. For all his bi-partisan intentions, though, all Ignatius could do is allude to the need for a "common purpose." He couldn't define any ideas or policies that the Bush administration could actually hold in common with the Democratic majority in Congress.

Media moderates can serve a purpose in American politics, but they also need a lot of help from others in order to be useful. Above all, media moderates like David Broder need to have a set of credible policy ideas to respond to, compromise, and build consensus around. Given that the Bush administration is no longer taken seriously, moderates need to start investigating the left's ideas on the war in Iraq, tensions with Iran, homeland security, social security reform, and health and energy policy. Perhaps the ideas of the left provide ground for the kinds of fruitfully critical discussions that could lead to a new moderate consensus. Media moderates have given little credence to the left since the early days of the Reagan administration. However, taking the left more seriously may be the moderate media's only chance to regain a significant role in contemporary politics.

Moderates need to look left.