DreamThrall
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,483
- Reaction score
- 0
From a Newsweek Op/Ed by Johnathan Alter
Aug. 2 issue - Linda Ronstadt had a little problem at the Aladdin Casino in Las Vegas last week. After she dedicated her song "Desperado" to Michael Moore and described him as "an American hero," patrons began booing and heading for the exits, with some throwing their drinks against her posters on the way out. Of course, most others in the hall that night and in the country as a whole can't understand why the committed partisans on both sides are so rabid, and they hardly find it entertaining. Don't be surprised to read this fall about barroom brawls over the finer points of Iraq policy, which may be better than fighting about football or "What you lookin' at?" but hardly represents the civil debate we had reason to expect in the first presidential election since September 11.
All that negative karma carries a price. President Bush's campaign has decided to scale back for now on his misleading attack ads on John Kerry because they aren't working as well as expected. The Kerry ads on Bush have not been nearly as nasty, but surrogates have cranked up the rhetoric to the point where the Kerry high command is warning speakers at the Boston convention to watch the personal jabs. It won't be easy. On a conference call with reporters last week, former senator Max Cleland, who will introduce Kerry's acceptance speech, referred to Bush's telling a "pack of lies," which is now standard fare, even for moderate Democrats. Such talk may sound satisfying to their Blue State friends, but it could cost them the presidency.
You can understand the Democrats' anger. Since at least 1988, Republicans have simply been better street fighters, from crushing Michael Dukakis as an unpatriotic sissy on phony issues like the Pledge of Allegiance to relentlessly trashing Bill Clinton to turning Al Gore's extremely minor misstatements into "evidence" that he was a monumental liar.
But it was the aftermath of the two biggest events of the last five years that lit the fuse. First came the disputed 2000 election, when Bush received half a million fewer votes. Even if the new president had moved to the center, where the voters had clearly indicated their sentiments lay, hard feelings would have lingered. But the man who vowed to "change the tone" in Washington and pursue a "humble" foreign policy proceeded to govern as if he had carried 49 states. Without a mandate, he rammed through huge tax cuts for the rich and forced right-wing judges onto the bench. He sold out consumers to the pharmaceutical, insurance and energy industries. The period following 9/11 was even worse. Bush squandered a rare moment of national unity by failing to ask for any shared sacrifice to confront the crisis, then exploited homeland security and Iraq to skewer Democrats in the 2002 midterm elections. Going to war in Iraq under false pretenses and botching the occupation were only the latest sources of outrage.
But making Whoopi Goldberg mad doesn't win close elections. In the 1998 midterms, the Clinton haters went so far over the top that the Democrats won in November. Bush haters may generate a similar backlash this time. Right now about 45 percent are unshakably in each camp. The battle is over the remaining 10 percent, which is disproportionately Hispanic and not greatly interested in politics. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is being seen widely enough that it could tip some independents toward Kerry. But a larger number feel a certain comfort with Bush—if they didn't, they would already be against him. They figure he got them through nearly three years since 9/11 without a terrorist attack on American soil. If they fire him they will do so reluctantly, more in sorrow that he hasn't met a high enough standard than in anger over his abuses.
To put it in fairy-tale terms, comparing Bush to Pinocchio is a loser; swing voters don't want to parse his statements for lies and don't like being told they were duped. It makes them feel bad about themselves. A more resonant fairy tale this year is the one about the little boy who cried wolf. Bush says we are more secure, but by crying wolf over Iraq and WMD, he will make it harder the next time to rouse world opinion against real nuclear wolves in Iran, North Korea or elsewhere. And by alienating allies, he has made it harder to root out Al Qaeda.
There is so much material to work with that Democrats don't have to become hyperventilating Moorecrats. Calling Bush an evil liar tied up in conspiracies involving the Carlyle Group, Afghan pipelines and the like is both preposterous and counterproductive. Better to calmly explain how Bush & Co. may look like grown-ups but have made one incompetent decision after another, even as they dodge accountability, kowtow to extremists in their party and (especially relevant for undecided business people) harm Brand U.S.A. throughout the world. Just don't try making that case in a casino.
Aug. 2 issue - Linda Ronstadt had a little problem at the Aladdin Casino in Las Vegas last week. After she dedicated her song "Desperado" to Michael Moore and described him as "an American hero," patrons began booing and heading for the exits, with some throwing their drinks against her posters on the way out. Of course, most others in the hall that night and in the country as a whole can't understand why the committed partisans on both sides are so rabid, and they hardly find it entertaining. Don't be surprised to read this fall about barroom brawls over the finer points of Iraq policy, which may be better than fighting about football or "What you lookin' at?" but hardly represents the civil debate we had reason to expect in the first presidential election since September 11.
All that negative karma carries a price. President Bush's campaign has decided to scale back for now on his misleading attack ads on John Kerry because they aren't working as well as expected. The Kerry ads on Bush have not been nearly as nasty, but surrogates have cranked up the rhetoric to the point where the Kerry high command is warning speakers at the Boston convention to watch the personal jabs. It won't be easy. On a conference call with reporters last week, former senator Max Cleland, who will introduce Kerry's acceptance speech, referred to Bush's telling a "pack of lies," which is now standard fare, even for moderate Democrats. Such talk may sound satisfying to their Blue State friends, but it could cost them the presidency.
You can understand the Democrats' anger. Since at least 1988, Republicans have simply been better street fighters, from crushing Michael Dukakis as an unpatriotic sissy on phony issues like the Pledge of Allegiance to relentlessly trashing Bill Clinton to turning Al Gore's extremely minor misstatements into "evidence" that he was a monumental liar.
But it was the aftermath of the two biggest events of the last five years that lit the fuse. First came the disputed 2000 election, when Bush received half a million fewer votes. Even if the new president had moved to the center, where the voters had clearly indicated their sentiments lay, hard feelings would have lingered. But the man who vowed to "change the tone" in Washington and pursue a "humble" foreign policy proceeded to govern as if he had carried 49 states. Without a mandate, he rammed through huge tax cuts for the rich and forced right-wing judges onto the bench. He sold out consumers to the pharmaceutical, insurance and energy industries. The period following 9/11 was even worse. Bush squandered a rare moment of national unity by failing to ask for any shared sacrifice to confront the crisis, then exploited homeland security and Iraq to skewer Democrats in the 2002 midterm elections. Going to war in Iraq under false pretenses and botching the occupation were only the latest sources of outrage.
But making Whoopi Goldberg mad doesn't win close elections. In the 1998 midterms, the Clinton haters went so far over the top that the Democrats won in November. Bush haters may generate a similar backlash this time. Right now about 45 percent are unshakably in each camp. The battle is over the remaining 10 percent, which is disproportionately Hispanic and not greatly interested in politics. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is being seen widely enough that it could tip some independents toward Kerry. But a larger number feel a certain comfort with Bush—if they didn't, they would already be against him. They figure he got them through nearly three years since 9/11 without a terrorist attack on American soil. If they fire him they will do so reluctantly, more in sorrow that he hasn't met a high enough standard than in anger over his abuses.
To put it in fairy-tale terms, comparing Bush to Pinocchio is a loser; swing voters don't want to parse his statements for lies and don't like being told they were duped. It makes them feel bad about themselves. A more resonant fairy tale this year is the one about the little boy who cried wolf. Bush says we are more secure, but by crying wolf over Iraq and WMD, he will make it harder the next time to rouse world opinion against real nuclear wolves in Iran, North Korea or elsewhere. And by alienating allies, he has made it harder to root out Al Qaeda.
There is so much material to work with that Democrats don't have to become hyperventilating Moorecrats. Calling Bush an evil liar tied up in conspiracies involving the Carlyle Group, Afghan pipelines and the like is both preposterous and counterproductive. Better to calmly explain how Bush & Co. may look like grown-ups but have made one incompetent decision after another, even as they dodge accountability, kowtow to extremists in their party and (especially relevant for undecided business people) harm Brand U.S.A. throughout the world. Just don't try making that case in a casino.
