Americans have a predicament. The public is distrustful of the competence, the politics, and even the motives of politicians. This is manifest in the president, who has a year left in his term, and in a Congress animated primarily by partisan bickering. No relief is in sight since we have a presidential contest between the two parties distinguished not by leadership but by a depressing level of ambiguity, fudging, and downright pandering.
About 75 percent of Americans, in numerous polls, say that the country is headed in the wrong direction. The optimism that once defined the United States is slowly disappearing, and now only a third of Americans think their children will be better off than they are today. Historic challenges face us: Fanatics are trying to get nuclear bombs, the planet is at risk from global warming, we are overly dependent for energy on the volatile Middle East, healthcare is unaffordable for millions, there is no coherent policy on immigration, and the dollar is in the dumps. What kind of leadership do we have to match the hour?
First, we have a president who has lost the moral authority to govern. His approval rating hovers around 30 percent. Those who work with him rightly attest to his warmth, his wit, his intelligence, and his determination, but what comes through is a rigid assertiveness, along with a dubious optimism. Too many of his policies, led by Iraq, are seen to have failed, and some of his key appointments have been disastrous. Witness the failed post-invasion military strategy of CentCom leader Gen. Tommy Franks; the civil reconstruction policies of Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul Bremer; and the shortcomings of Michael Brown, the ex-head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who became a poster child for ineptitude during Hurricane Katrina.
Second, we have a Democrat-controlled Congress that has proved to be even more partisan than it was when the Republicans were in control. Only 14 percent of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Senate and House, the lowest in polling history.
Third, the leading presidential candidates do not inspire the public. In a recent Zogby poll that measured "Whom would you never vote for for president of the U.S.?" Hillary Clinton received the highest negatives, 50 percent, and Rudy Giuliani, 43 percent. Our politics are dominated by Clinton's efforts to overcome concerns about her evasiveness and political calculation, symbolized by her taking six different positions on the issue of driver's licenses for illegal aliens, while Giuliani seeks to separate himself from one of his closest confidants, a former police commissioner now facing criminal charges.
The great divide. Over the past several decades, our politicians have moved into two ideological camps—one arrogant and rigidly conservative, the other condescending and inflexibly liberal. Neither party has come to represent a broad coalition, in part because extremists threaten the more moderate members with primary fights. Congressional gridlock has become a cliché. The public has a ringside seat for the nonstop squabbling of a two-party system that wastes vast sums of money and serves the needs of special interests rather than ordinary people.
The president bears some responsibility here. As governor of Texas, he worked productively with the Democrats to get things done. But in his first term in the White House, his administration gratified the Republican Party's social conservative base, yielding what the American public perceived as one of the most partisan and divisive periods in modern U.S. history. That set the tone for the ensuing years.
The majority of Americans are relatively moderate and pragmatic. They are centrist, made up of middle-aged, middle-class, practical people who believe in consensus. Fed up with gridlock and inaction, about 80 percent want compromise and conciliation.
The fastest-growing political party today is no party. Self-defined independents outnumber Republicans with close to 40 percent of adults falling into that category. In most states that have party registrations, independents are increasing at a higher rate than any other segment of voters. Almost 60 percent of voters have said they would consider an independent presidential candidate next year—a number similar to the percentage who favored a third party in the year that Ross Perot began his independent run for the presidency. Only a president can change the partisan tenor of American politics. That is why the public may be ready for the right independent leader in next year's presidential election. Here, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg qualifies. He is bipartisan, extraordinarily competent, and immune to the influence of campaign contributors. America may be on the verge of a transformation of its politics to match the needs of the hour.
