Sometimes it seems that our political world is thoroughly poisoned by rabid punditry and bombastic partisanship. The often gossamer-thin Democratic-Republican divide, in terms of actual policy, has inexplicably widened into an ideological gulf that absurdly dictates not only voting patterns, but the news channel Americans watch and the political books they read. Both the airwaves and library shelves are occupied by self-important commentators with poorly concealed personal and or political agendas. With all due respect to the California condor, America's most endangered species may well be the living political voice that garners bipartisan respect.

Now, there is one of the remaining few in the political wild who has spoken, or rather written, in uncharacteristic candor and revelation, and his words may have consequences for both parties in the upcoming election.

"The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," the autobiography of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, was released Monday. According to the privileged few who received advance copies, including Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, the volume is unequivocally critical of the laxness of the Bush administration's fiscal policy — contradicting conventional wisdom of Republican values.

Mr. Woodward quotes Mr. Greenspan as writing, "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending…Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency."

Though many are aware, for example, of the frightening exponential increases to the national debt during the years of Bush II, few have laid the blame of fiscal austerity so squarely on his shoulders. As for congressional Republicans, Mr. Greenspan wrote "They swapped principle for power. They got neither … 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin, became part of the Republicans' rhetoric."

Conversely, the excerpts selected by Mr. Woodward are glowing praise of President Clinton's economic policy. He commends Mr. Clinton's 1993 economic plan, calling it an "act of political courage" and credits him for his pragmatism and deep intellectual engagement in dealing with economic issues.

Furthermore, Mr. Greenspan credits the former president for turning the financial rags he inherited into staggering riches. "The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world.”

So, is Alan Greenspan just another GOP critic whose voice will soon dissipate into the cacophony that is American political dialogue? There are some reasons to believe not. First, Greenspan is no bleeding-heart liberal but a self-avowed "Libertarian Republican" who was long an intellectual companion and confidant of none other than Ayn Rand.

Secondly, and in my opinion more importantly, there are few people in politics more universally respected than Alan Greenspan. He served under presidential ideologues ranging from Reagan to Clinton. He's widely credited for mitigating the severity of the 1987 stock market crash just two months into his tenure and boldly providing credit that short-circuited the Asian Financial Crisis. And whether it was due to inimitable skill, peerless timing or some combination of the two, he will forever be associated with the juggernaut economy of the 1990s in the minds of Americans.

We haven't the space or the time to critique his arguments or reasoning, but suffice it to say many people are going to take Mr. Greenspan's words to heart. What does that spell for Republicans and Democrats? Mr. Greenspan's attacks on Republican fiscal policy could make the GOP's libertarian-minded sector think twice during the next election. Thus leaving their strange bedfellows in the party, Christian fundamentalists, the only dependable constituency.

Though Mr. Greenspan reportedly writes with equal ambivalence about the fiscal policy of congressional Democrats, he is not attacking a traditional position of strength in doing so. Additionally, it's possible that his praise of Bill could lead to increased support for Hillary. In sum, if there is an exodus of voters, it will more likely be from red to blue than vice versa.

Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have moved to contain the fallout — with the president issuing an extensive response from a White House spokesperson and Mr. Cheney submitting an op-ed piece to the Wall Street Journal. But the bomb has already been dropped. In this crazy black and white — rather, red and blue — political world of ours, when that rare someone who is credible on both sides of the great divide decides to speak, people listen.

John Sprangers ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and international studies.