What Columnists Don't Understand

Watching "The Chris Matthews Show"--what can I say, I've got a problem--just now, and there was speculation that, in a year, John McCain might switch his position on the Iraq clusterfuck and say, "Bring the troops home." Um. Here's what columnists/pundits don't seem to understand. Unlike say, a NYTimes op-ed writer, a politician maintains power only so long as he or she maintains the support of a constituency. This limits the ability of politicians to "turn on a dime." It limits their flexibility. If one constructs a coalition to support oneself based on hawkishness in the clusterfuck, that coalition expects continued hawkishness. In constructing that coalition, one has alienated other potential supporters. If one wishes to change positions, one has to consider whether doing so will lose one's constituency--offset, of course, by the potential gains in new constituents based on the change.

So, GWB can't become a "green" candidate. McCain can't become a peace candidate. It doesn't work that way.

The problem, I think, is that columnists tend to view politicians as personalities. But, especially in primary politics, politicians are the sum total of the supporting constituencies they can attract. And attraction is based on policy as well as personality.