PhotoDude.com

Fri. Oct 10, 2003

Sliming Yourself

Sliming Yourself – During a busy political week including a recall election, plus charges of Hitler-loving and woman-groping (in a race that featured a female porn star), the burner has been turned down on the Wilson/Plame Affair, as the news cycle moves on to fresher sensations.

Maybe in media terms, ”it’s over.” Maybe not. But for many, the damage has been done, and as I’ve been saying all along, it wasn’t a legal judgement. It was a moral one, and it may be a ”tipping point” for many. Not for Democrats, of course, but for centrists (you know, the 30% who decide elections?) ... and even some Republicans.

An example? Ralph Peters, retired Army officer and a well respected and vociferous supporter of the War in Iraq, has nearly declared he won’t vote for Bush. Not because of the Wilson/Plame Affair, but because of what he views as another of ”Bush’s Betrayals”: ”If he betrays the Kurds, as he appears blithely ready to do, there is at least one vote he will not get in the next election.”

”Because international issues trump all others in this dangerous age, many of us have given Bush a pass on his greedy, polarizing domestic agenda as long as his foreign policy appeared effective, courageous and wise.”

”But selling out the Kurds would cancel every one of Bush’s promises and successes. If the Democrats want traction against Bush’s achievements abroad – which the president appears all too ready to sacrifice – the administration’s abrupt, opportunistic disregard of Kurdish interests would be a good place to start.”

”And then the Dems can take on the Bush regime’s love for Saudi Arabia.”

Ouch. It seems to hurt more when the blow comes from the right, doesn’t it? His point is about Turks and Kurds, not Wilsons and Plames, but to me, the key phrase is that Bush might be given a domestic pass ”as long as his foreign policy appeared effective, courageous and wise.”

Attacking your opponent’s wife in an attempt to smear their credibility on a matter of national security has been shown to be ineffective, cowardly, and most definitely unwise.

OK, you say, that’s just one retired Army guy, and it’s not even ”on point” with regards to Wilson/Plame. Well, I think he’s a smart and indicative voice with quite a track record, but if you insist on someone more ”relevant,” how about a Republican Senator? ”A Senate GOP backer of the Iraq war says the Justice Department probe is eroding voter confidence in the president. ’Bush promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office. This is diminishing him. He looks smaller, less commanding.’ The GOP source says he is disgusted by White House efforts to tar Wilson as an antiwar partisan. ’The administration moves from honor and integrity to slime and defend,’ says this Republican.”

A Republican Senator. In a nation of 250 million, he is one of Bush’s Top 100 Political Allies. And he’s pointing out that the man who promised to be ”a uniter, not a divider,” who proclaimed to be a ”compassionate conservative,” and who vowed ”to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office” is now being defined on this issue by the unchallenged phrases, ”his wife is fair game,” and ”I don’t have any idea.”

As Matt Welch points out, ”administrations that regularly invoke a high moral calling will only undermine their own arguments if petty amorality is tolerated.”

”President George W. Bush has known for more than two months that someone in his White House uncovered a CIA source during a week when his administration was overtly tarnishing the source’s husband. Dealing with this rancid fact promptly, and seriously, will be an important sign that national security and public morality are more important than the petty politics of any given day.”

Well, I think the concept that this will be dealt with promptly and seriously by the Bush administration is a dead one. They have ”promptly” charged the Democrats with raising this partisan story, and ”seriously” gone after anyone who disagrees with them. The chosen strategy of ”slime and defend” shows they don’t think there’s a problem here, in fact, they appear ready to defend these tactics without a hint of embarassment.

Why? Maybe because they’re not done yet.

Juliette Kayyem is a terrorism expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Here’s someone who has a clue about this important issue of national security, and her conclusion? ”There’s only one rational explanation for why this was done, and it was clearly to send a message out that if you publicly criticize this administration, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, there might be consequences to suffer.”

One of the ways that you show confidence in your own position and your willingness to stand behind the honesty and sincerity of that view … is to show a basic respect for your opponent’s views. To acknowledge that they might also have honest and sincere views about the future of their country, that just happen to differ with yours. Confidence in your position allows you to let that position stand on its own merits. In addition, showing respect to your opponent’s views makes it easier if, by some slim chance, you later have to admit they were right.

Alternately, you could go after the guy’s wife, then slime and defend.

Might even get away with it, too. But don’t expect people to forget it, even if no one goes to jail over it. Don’t think that people aren’t making an ongoing judgement. A moral judgement, not a legal one. As as shown above, they’ll do it based on exactly what you’ve said, contrasted with what you’ve done.

They will weigh your own statements, by themselves, without a Democratic syllable in sight. A ”compassionate conservative” who vows ”to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office,” versus an administration that says ”his wife is fair game” and then proceeds with a strategy of ”slime and defend.”

It’s such a stark dichotomy that even the most rabid supporter should be able to see it. And I have a feeling that over the next 12 months, it’s going to get starker.