Moderate manifesto

Maybe it’s because I recently read Bill Bradley’s book about how we could fashion a solutions-oriented new political and governing majority by solidifying the mushy American political center.

Maybe it’s that I then sat down with the most passionate of Democratic centrists, Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council. I listened as he held forth on how all these modern blogs, left and right, merely represent noisy extremes amounting to nothing in the way of successful politics or effective governing.

Some guy sitting around blogging his unyielding political extremism all day hardly represents the work-a-day world. And the work-a-day world is where you’ll find the people who exist in the decisive and soft apolitical center of American politics.

Most folks don’t have time to blog or read a blog. They don’t live and breathe politics or live by a purist’s philosophy. They’re a little left and a little right. They’ll engage in the presidential election next Labor Day, or thereabout. They’ll look for practicalities and comfort levels, and to pronouncements on the war, and to their own pocketbooks, taking special interest in their home values, the credit crunch and the costs of health insurance and health care.

So I’ve been wondering. What if a capable and credible candidate sought the presidency saying something approximating this:

“Our current way of politics simply does not work, and the American people cannot long survive our ensuing irresponsible inattention to their real needs.

“Because of the over-valuing both of big money and adrenaline-pumping partisan rhetoric, and because of an issue like abortion that people never are going to agree on, we insist on splitting ourselves wide open down the middle. Not much in the way of efficient, responsive and responsible government can get done across this vast chasm, especially with a U.S. Senate that requires 60 votes to do just about anything anymore.

“Abortion is a religious issue and a legal issue. I’m not running to be a religious leader or for the Supreme Court. I have nothing at all, not a word, to say about that issue. You cannot make me say anything.

“If I get a chance to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, I’m going to look for the most cerebral and legally eminent person I can find. I will make him or her this promise: I will ask nothing, nary a word, about what he or she thinks about abortion. Or anything else. I already will have settled on that person because of character and legal eminence.

“I’m going to be entirely too busy concerning myself with things falling within a president’s actual direct authority and responsibility. My job, in other words.

“I’m going to be trying to reform this tax code to make it fairer, and, I hope, net an actual increase in revenue. Why an increase? Because I don’t want my country living on ever-growing debt that the Chinese or somebody else could someday call. That’s why.

“I’m going to be working on ways to extend health insurance coverage and control health care costs. I’m going to be working on doing a better job regulating these greedy, easy-money financial schemes that inevitably come back to bite us. I’m going to be working on getting us out of this war in a way that restores our nobility, preserves our muscularity and serves both our national security interests and the international interests of our vital allies.

“All of that is going to require intensive study, earnest negotiation and smart, delicate compromise. I won’t have time for partisan hate.

“As I roll out specific ideas on these and other matters, I invite you to consider and to agree or disagree, and to vote for me or not. Run your mouths or your blogging fingers pro or con, if you must. That’s how democracy and freedom go. And I’m for them.”

John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of “High Wire,” a book about Bill Clinton’s first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@ arkansasnews.com.