Conventional wisdom says former senator Bill Frist is not a
political player anymore. After a stillborn run for president and a
decision to forego the governor’s race, Frist has rejoined Nashville’s
Belle Meade Country Club and all but sworn off elective politics.
As a senator, he was competent but not outstanding. As a majority
leader, he was underwhelming. As a potential presidential candidate, he
was a disaster. But now, as a former politician, his advocacy on the
big issues of the day — health care, education, AIDS, even
extremism in the Republican Party — has been, dare we say it,
statesmanlike.
Where has this Frist been? Would the old Frist have said that the
so-called birther movement wasn’t a “reflection of the Republican
Party” and that people “trying to connect the two are exaggerating and
trying to make a point”?
Would the same man who carried water for the Bush administration and
diagnosed Terry Schiavo via videotape have been willing to buck his
party and declare a Democratic health-care plan, denounced by
conservatives as socialist, to be a viable option he would vote for
were he still in office?
Would an earlier incarnation of Frist have chastised his own party
for raising the specter of “death panels”? Would an elected Frist call
arguments against the public option “overblown”?
Retired politicians always seem more attractive when they’re out of
office than when they’re in. They exhibit a freedom outside the
confines of political calculation that they never do when they’re in
the game.
Al Gore was the same way. In 2000, he was a wooden, timid
presidential candidate. Apart from his choice of Joe Lieberman as a
running mate, he was afraid to make bold moves or show any authentic
personality. If the Gore of 2003 and beyond had run against George W.
Bush, some say, our country would look very different from how it does
today.
It seems the version of politicians we say we want to run and serve
are rarely the ones who actually do.
We blame the game of politics, the media, and even the politicians
themselves. We blame anyone and everyone for this eternal condition
— except ourselves.
We talk about politics like it’s something far removed, as though
we’re pawns on a chessboard manipulated by something out of our
control. But the sad fact is that these pandering, paint-by-number
politicians who measure their words and actions haven’t been foisted on
us — but rather chosen by us.
We may say we want politicians to act like post-political Gores and
Frists, but if that was what the public really thirsted for, surely
there’d be an entirely different kind of political consulting.
Consider President Barack Obama. As much as he may have looked (and
to some still does) like a leader above politics, it’s clear he’s just
as cautious and calculating as any other Democratic leader. He hasn’t
taken bold action on foreign policy, and, domestically, he opted not to
push a bold, concrete plan for health reform — opting instead for
a vague outline.
He did that for the same reason any politician does anything: to
preserve a political future.
We can blame a lot of people and cite many reasons why politicians
are so much different once they get out of office, but the real reason
is staring at us in the mirror.
We may have media — mass, alternative, and new — seeking
to manipulate and trick us. We may have political professionals trying
to bamboozle us. And there may be monied special interests bending
politicians to their will. But we’re in control if we want to be.
If we want politicians who say what they mean and mean what they
say, voters should support them when they emerge. Otherwise,
politicians will behave exactly like Gore and Frist — cautious
and calculating in office, bold and statesmanlike outside of
politics.
Until voters show leaders that they can buck the system and be
rewarded, they’ll simply show up and toe the line. And if they’re
reelected, well then, the bad guy is us.
(A.C. Kleinheider is NashvillePost.com’s political blogger and aggregator. This column appeared first in the City Paper of Nashville.)
