Is there an iron fist in the Democrats' velvet glove? Posted by David Adesnik

This post isn't about foreign policy per se, but it is about whether and how the Democrats' can retake control of issues they have lost, foreign policy being just one.  This morning, the WaPo ran an analysis column by Dana Milbank that asked whether Democrats lack the ability of the GOP to go for the jugular.

Milbank's case in point is the Democratic response to a patently dishonest ad by NARAL, which accused John Roberts of supporting those who bomb abortion clinics.  On Friday morning, the WaPo denounced the NARAL ad in an editorial entitled Abortion Smear.  Also on Friday, liberal columnist EJ Dionne dismissed the accusations against Roberts as "outrageous".  Then, the NYT editorial board joined the chorus as well.

According to Milbank's analysis column, this sort of liberal self-flaggellation provides a stark contrast to what happned last summer, when,

Amid similar criticism against another controversial ad, most Republicans brushed aside demands to repudiate Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Milbank has chosen his words carefully, but still leaves a somewhat misleading impression.  While refusing to condemn the Swift Vets, top Republicans, including the President, were also extraordinarily careful not to say anything that might have been construed by the media as an endorsement of the Swift Vets' accusations.  (I confronted this evasiveness first-hand when I, along with other bloggers, interviewed RNC chairman Ed Gillespie last summer at the GOP convention in New York.)

Did Bush have a moral obligation to condemn the Swift Vets explicitly?  Or would have expecting such a condemnation from Bush amounted to demanding that he play by the same rules to which Milbank attributes the Democrats' weakness?

Either way, the adamant refusal of Bush, Gillespie and others to say anything positive about the Swift Vets demonstrates that there clearly are lines that the GOP will not cross.  Depending on your perspective, you can chalk this up either to a sense of fair play or to the realization that the media would have eviscerated Bush for saying anything positive about the Swift Vets.

Thus, the question to ask is not whether the Democrats should abandon their ethical standards, but whether they should adjust them slightly downwards in the name of expediency.  Before endorsing such a notion, I think it is important to point one critical difference between the Swift Vet and NARAL offensives.  As Kevin Drum astutely observes,

The Swift Boat folks were able to manufacture uncertainty by focusing on an event that was genuinely hard to gather facts about. It was something that happened over 30 years ago...

The NARAL ad, conversely, focused on an event in which the facts were well established and every news organization in the country was able to figure out within hours that the charges against Roberts were dubious at best. Sure, partisans could have stuck with NARAL, but the court of public opinion matters, and the NARAL ad was so easy to fact check that there was never any chance of winning in that court. That's dumb politics.

Although Kevin states unequivocally that he believes the Democrats to be morally superior to the GOP, his observation about the sheer stupidity of the NARAL ad explains why Milbank and others are wrong to chalk up the Democratic backlash against NARAL as a sign of weakness.

But there are other cases in point.  According to Milbank

In June, Democrats demanded that Bush aide Karl Rove apologize for saying that liberals wanted "therapy and understanding for our attackers." Rove refused to apologize, and Republicans leapt to his defense. Just before the Rove episode, Republicans demanded an apology from Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the number two Democrat in the Senate, who likened U.S. treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to techniques used by Nazis. Democrats joined in criticizing Durbin, who eventually delivered a tearful apology on the Senate floor.

I think this example begins to get at the question of whether Democrats should go for the jugular when attempting to re-establish themselves as the party of national security.  I certainly think Rove's comments were appalling.  Yet Durbin brought Hitler (and Stalin) into play.  As Kevin would say, that's dumb politics.

From a longer-term perspective, the Democrats need to ask themselves whether it is possible to attack Bush's foreign policy more viciously and more effectively without slipping into a position, such as Durbin's, that can easily be labeled as anti-American or unpatriotic.  As I see it, the problem isn't that Democrats are afraid to bare their fangs, but rather that the party is so divided that it can't agree on how to attack Bush.

The left wing of the party would be glad to aggressively cast the war in Iraq as another Vietnam, but the centrist wing of the party is committed to promoting democracy in Iraq regardless of whether the invasion was justified in the first place.  The centrists would be glad to attack Bush more forcefully for his failure to win the war in Iraq, but that would imply that America should commit more resources to the confict, rather than pulling out (as the Vietnam analogy suggests).

The bottom line is that unless the Democrats can speak with one voice, turning up the volume will only create static instead of taking the national security debate back from the GOP.

Comments

[Jay.Mac]

Despite the comparisons between the Swift Vets and Rove, your argument essentially boils down to- NARAL and Durbin practised "dumb politics". The comparisons to the Swift Vets and Rove just don't hold much water and seem to be superfluous. The thrust of the article is, NARAL and Durbin screwed up. No need to bring anything else into it.

The problems for the Left/Dems is not "moral highground", it's the predisposition towards an offensive tone. I've been trying to find a Left-leaning blog which doesn't automatically resort to slanderous terms and ridiculous analogies (Nazis, gulags, etc). It's hard to find (although a little site called Democracy Arsenal is doing quite well). Admittedly, many will tone down their language into more reasonable terms when confronted (in a reasonable manner) but that first impression is hard to beat. For many on the Left, the battle lines have been drawn and it's a "them and us" mindset. The huge number of people in the centre don't seem to enter into the equation, which is a shame because those on the Left- and some on the Right too- aren't trying to convince anyone. They're simple preaching to the converted.

If the Left/Dems want to start winning people over to their point of view they should learn to start being polite and not resorting to childish name-calling and empty Bush-bashing just for the sake of it. It does nothing at all to advance their cause. Let me put it this way- I want you to do something for me, are you going to do it if I begin my request by attacking you and your political beliefs? Doubtful. The Left needs to get over the "Repugnant Party" terminology and get down to facts. You want to end the war in Iraq- give me a plan to show how that's to be done- don't just say "Bush lied". Want to show me that the Dems are tough on national security? Show me your stances on a number of issues, don't just blast Bush for what he's doing.

The biggest problem Dems have is your statement- "the party is so divided that it can't agree on how to attack Bush."

Attacking Bush is not the way to do it- presenting your own ideas and countering his programs with your own is the way to show us what you're made of. Don't like the way he's handling Iran? Show us what you've got- how are you going to stop them producing nuclear weapons and perhaps starting a nuclear jihad against Israel or American bases in the region? Simply saying (as many do) "well what about N. Korea, huh?" isn't an argument. It's a completely empty statement.

Oh, and one more thing- when NARAL and Durbin (and whoever else is to come) apologise for their dumb politics it's not enough to say "I'm sorry you were offended in some way". The proper response is "I'm sorry."

[Orson]

Democrats are factually challenged lot. Only a neglect of them - and mistaking MSM cheeleading (as happened with the Swiftvets last year) as factual and truthful (eg, ignore them and it will go away, which meant taking pro-military people for granted) - keeps getting Dems into trouble. Unless and until the like of Paul begala and Randi Rhoads are marginalized, I expect them to keep hitting their heads. "D'oh!"

A larger question is implied by David's comments. In Woolridge and Micklithwait's "The Right Nation" (paper ed's Afterword?), a reference is made to a political scientist's finding in 2002, based on voting patterns, that congress had become the most ideologically polarized since before WWI. If this is true, the question Dems need to address manfully is whether or not their abandonment of the poltical center is self-inflicted or not.

This, I submit, is the great issue which needs to to be answered. If it's not, then Clinton's two terms as president was a fluke, and little short-term can be done about it. If it isn't, then a quicker turnaround of the party is possible. As Orin Kerr at volokh.com avered a week ago, Dems cannot be Dems and leave social liberalism behind. But they have and could still leave anti-war anti-Americanism behind. In April's Washington Monthly, William Galston laid out a smart template through which this could be achieved.

But who can hear all these important strategic matters seriously addressed in the blogosphere above all the invective and whinning? As per Jay.Macs's remarks, nowhere. "They're all criminals! They're all criminals! They're all criminals!" Randi Rhoads screamed one day on Air America. It's a rank cluelessness unbecomming of "smart" people like Begala and Rhoads and lots of others.

[rosignol]

First, go read Jay.mac's first paragraph again. On second thoght, go re-read the entire post.

He's right. The way to win is to argue facts, propose alternatives, and convince the electorate that the Democrats can do a better job- not to try to portray Bush as a corrupt, criminally incompetent neo-fascist.

[Dan Kervick]

I know there is a rule in American politics according to which absolutely nothing is comparable to the Nazis - even if some action or policy is, well, somewhat Nazi-like.

In America you can't liken anybody's behavior to that of the Nazis (except, of course, the enemy of the moment, who is always lower than the lowest Nazi): you can't say people have used tactics that are like some tactics the Nazis used; or that they use Nazi-style paper clips or drive Nazi-style cars; or say their clothes remind you of Nazi uniforms; or say they resort to aggressive force, or torture or suspensions of human rights in anything approaching an even vaguely Nazi-ish way. Nazi comparisons? Verboten! So Durbin committed a political error by violating this taboo. (And oh yeah ... gulags? They're out too.)

But really!! This is politics. If the Senator engaged in a bit of rhetorical excess or committed a dialectical faux pas, big deal. He could have deftly and gently backed away from from his Nazi comparison, while dishing out a revamped criticism along with a savage attack on his attackers. Turn the tables and change the story - don't cower.

If some fool attacks the patriotism of a Democratic Senator, said fool should experience something landing on him like a ton of bricks. The next time something like this happens, the Senator should defend his patriotism belligerently and indignantly; and attack the attacker personally and relentlessly. And his colleagues should get behind him, and stay on message until the misguided attacker recants in humiliation. A blubbering submission on the part of the Senator is the *worst possible outcome*, and was completely inappropriate in this situation.

These are our party leaders we are talking about! You want to avoid slipping into positions that "that can easily be labeled as anti-American or unpatriotic"? Then don't make it so damned politically painless to get away with that sort of labelling! Durbin is *obviously* a good man and a patriotic American, that the focus should have been on the *nerve* of his cowardly attackers, and the weakness of their position. The latter issue should have quickly been made to dwarf whatever error Durbin might have made in his speech.

Episodes of this kind should be used to the party leader's own advantage. If someone points an accusing, slanderous finger at you across the table, you quickly turn the table, leap on top, raise the volume and glower down threateningly at the accuser. Durbin could have begun by in turn attacking the patriotism of those who dishonor the country. He could have thrown in some choice anti-elitist putdowns about the sniveling Machiavellian weasels at the top who never spent a day in uniform, but have no trouble dragging the reputation of our country and honor of our armed forces through the muck. You also make sure that you don't attack the soldiers themselves, but defend their honor against the sorry AWOL President, the lying and conniving Vice President and the slick beltway toady lawyers like Gonzalez who are responsible for the shameful policies that have damaged our soldiers' reputations. You call daily attention to their cowardice in passing the buck downward to the soldiers who executed their policies, and in their hiding behind legalistic evasions.

[Dan Kervick]

Jay Mac wrote:

"The problems for the Left/Dems is not "moral highground", it's the predisposition towards an offensive tone. I've been trying to find a Left-leaning blog which doesn't automatically resort to slanderous terms and ridiculous analogies (Nazis, gulags, etc)."..

Oh get over it Jay. I'm sure there are lots of "centrist" blogs that cater to the easily offended, places where restraint is the guiding principle and the dominant voice is a tastefully inoffensive monotone. On most blogs, though, on both the right and the left, the polemical excess, dubious comparisons and fallacious arguments come fast and furious. If you don't like what is said, you either argue back and attempt to make the contrary case, or you go away and stop reading the offensive sppech.

One would have to be dense to think that in our current cultural moment it is Democrats who are the reigning champions of the "offensive tone." A brief stroll through the AM radio spectrum, the cable news channels or the transcripts of congressional debate should be enough to convince any fair-minded person otherwise. Even in the blogosphere, where younger, more rambunctious, less house-broken Democrats manage a bit more stridency than do their leaders in the Congress, the really vile stuff comes from the right, where the "offensive" speech is not just insulting, but often comes packaged along with thinly veiled threats of violence and outright oppression.

You say that "if the Left/Dems want to start winning people over to their point of view they should learn to start being polite and not resorting to childish name-calling and empty Bush-bashing just for the sake of it". But I haven't noticed that childish name calling and gratuitous bashing of Democratic leaders has hurt Right/Repubs in recent years, or damaged their ability to win people over.

[David]

Both sides are making strong arguments here, so I will be brief. I agree in principle with Jay.Mac that the Democrats need strong policy proposals on critical issues like national security. But there is also a strong emotional element in politics, as well as tremendous gap between what is known by the well-informed and what is known by the average voter. When it comes to winning elections, I think most voters simply need to feel that a party or a candidate is on their side.

[Jay.Mac]

Dan - of course your point is valid, if I don't like it don't read it. The problem however is that if the left and right remain in two opposing camps and refuse to talk, other than to throw insults around, we're going to get nowhere.
Let's say the issue is Iraq, armour for vehicles, social security, etc. Whatever the case may be as a conservative when I'm looking to see what the "other side" is thinking on the issue I don't want to read invective, I want to see your ideas. The problem with American politics today (and I say this as an outsider) is that it is split into two camps. The reason it's like that is that (predominantly but not exclusively) the Left resorts to name-calling.

When Dick Durbin made his ridiculous comments it was correct that he was dragged over the coals. Let's just think about this for a second. He compared American servicemen to Nazis. I'm sorry but have six million people been exterminated at Gitmo or are the detainees there given so much food that they're putting on weight, are they given frequent medical exams to ensure that they're in good health? Durbin's comment was offensive in the extreme to the men and women of the US Army who risk their lives for the freedoms he enjoys. It was basically a big F**k you to them and it really does sum up the attitude of many of the Left. When "peace" protestors wear T-shirts with the legend Insurgent, when they call the terrorists in Iraq "freedom fighters", when Senators call US troops Nazis, then of course their patriotism is going to be questioned. American men and women are being killed by terrorists in Iraq so when someone says that these same terrorists are freedom fighters is there any other option but to question their patriotism?

Has the Bush administration become in any way Nazi-like? Did they sent thugs to break up Democrat meetings during the last election? Do they round up dissenters and ship them off to concentration camps? Seriously, get a grip and read some history. Until then these sorts of comments only serve to show your own ignorance. Belittling what the Nazis did by trying to compare it to a policy you don't particularly like displays a massive lack of understanding. When you do that why the heck should anyone listen to anything else you have to say?

On an aside, the "really vile stuff" comes from the Left- see the attacks Michelle Malkin has come under recently for an example. I haven't seen anything like that come from any of the right wing blogs I read.

The thing is, regardless of whether it's Bush or Clinton in the White House, it's still America, it's still the same country with the same people, under attack from the same Islamofascists. Many on the left seem to have forgotten that, it seems to me.

David- I can see that politics is an emotional issue but at the end of the day it's an intellectual process to try and convince your opponent (or voters) that your method is the best. Emotion can be present when doing that but resorting to hate-filled words convinces no one but those who already agree with what you're saying. Making snide comments about Bush's "stupidity" or his vacation time or whatever might get you a chuckle from one segment of society but for many others, it's a turn off- it does nothing to advance the argument, it's petty and it makes your arguments seem weak.

I like George Bush, I think he's a good man- however I disagree with his position on some things (immigration, border control, for example). If I'm to argue against him I'm not going to make juvenile comments about HIM, I'm going to attack the POSITION he has on that matter and suggest an alternative which I think makes better sense. Shouldn't that be what it's all about?

[Dan Kervick]

Jay Mac wrote:

..."Whatever the case may be as a conservative when I'm looking to see what the "other side" is thinking on the issue I don't want to read invective, I want to see your ideas."...

I'm sure you know how to find plenty of serious and sober left-wing opinion by reading The New York Review of Books, or Dissent, for example, or scholarly journals. And the blogosphere features a diverse assortment of the wild and the temperate, the passionately hostile and the dispassionately conciliatory, the emotive and the analytical. Some sites feature authors and commentators who engage in penetrating philosophical discurses on the issues of the day, others are more given to hit-and-run attacks, and reckless smearing. Popular discourse on both sides is, of course, always much more of a free-for-all than one finds in grave, elite journals or in academic discussion.

..."The reason it's like that is that (predominantly but not exclusively) the Left resorts to name-calling."...

I think you should expand your reading and listening. Spend some time with Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. These folks are not fringe figures by the way - they are a fantastically bestselling author and a widely syndicated radio star who appear to fall comfortably within the scope of mainstream right-wing opinion these days. But perhaps there is simply a deeper disagreement between us about which descriptions of other people are accurate, and which are simply examples of idle name-calling.

And perhaps it is just a reflection of my position over here on the left, but it seems to me that the accusation that one's enemies are "traitors", and the calls for them to be "shot", "hung", "horsewhipped" or "jailed" are somewhat more characteristic of the extreme right than the left. It also seems to me that it is the right-winger who is more likely to have accumulated some of the weaponry that gives his loose talk a truly threatening cast.

I disagree with your characterization of Durbin's comments, which in any case quickly runs into a diatribe against a whole lot of things you dislike about a much broader spectrum of people, constituting the whole "left". Sure, there are people who wear "insurgent" t-shirts. And I once got a tattoo in a popular tattoo parlor in a Navy town where the proprietor sported a bumper sticker that said "Kill Jane Fonda, American Traitor Bitch!" The tattoo assortment also included the usual collection of skulls, swastikas, boobs and knives dripping blood customary in these establishments. Yet I don't recall Trent Lott calling for the head of Jane Fonda with a bllody dagger between his teeth, so I'm not going to run him together with his more nutjob fellow-Repubs in this regard. And I don't recall Durbin wearing an "insurgent" t-shirt, or shouting Guevarrist slogans.

I am generally in favor of restricting the charge of "Nazi-like" to only those people who behave in a truly Nazi-like fashion. Now, when I see the evidence of my own eyes of the sadistic cruelty of the perpetrators of the Abu Ghraib crimes, and read about similar episodes at Abu Ghraib. I don't feel disposed personally to be squeamish about suggestions that their behavior is Nazi-like. And when lawyers continue to resign from their jobs at Gitmo in disgust at the sham "legal proceedings" that are taking place there, I feel justified in suspecting something similarly dark and Nazi-like is occurring in Cuba. You seem to be suggesting that unless someone perpetrates his own individual holocaust, then he escapes the charge of being Nazi-like. But most individual Nazis didn't perpetrate a whole holacaust. Many of those youthful Nazi thugs just beat up a few people they didn't like, or destroyed their property, or deprived a handful of people of their human rights and dignity. There were a few big Nazis who committed big evils. But the evil of Nazism was mostly due to the accumulated action of whole lot of little Nazis committing a whole lot of little evils, including small, localized episodes of sadistic violence. Are you saying that it is simply impossible for any US-soldier to behave in a similarly Nazi-like manner?

If an American does behave in a Nazi-like manner, and a fellow American criticizes him for it in the name of American values, why is it the latter who is "unpatriotic", and the former who is "defending our freedom"?

[David Billington]

Two questions:

1. (a) Is a party a means to ends that are not in doubt, or (b) is a party in need of ends to which it can serve as the means?

2. Is the value of the timeframe relevant to policy discussion inversely proportional to its length?

If the answer to the first question is (a), then the correct answer to the second question is yes, because the party can afford to focus on short-term matters. If the answer to the first question is (b), then the correct answer to the second question should be no.

[Robert Drake]

Dan - of course your point is valid, if I don't like it don't read it. The problem however is that if the left and right remain in two opposing camps and refuse to talk, other than to throw insults around, we're going to get nowhere. Let's say the issue is Iraq, armour for vehicles, social security, etc. Whatever the case may be as a conservative when I'm looking to see what the "other side" is thinking on the issue I don't want to read invective, I want to see your ideas. The problem with American politics today (and I say this as an outsider) is that it is split into two camps. The reason it's like that is that (predominantly but not exclusively) the Left resorts to name-calling.

Pure nonsense. Of the two, the right-wing is far more likely to engage in infantile name-calling. They must, because when challenged on the facts on any number of issues, from say trade agreements, to the continued solvency of social security, to the viability of a continued American presense in Iraq, they are hopelessly outgunned.

Bush doesn't want to talk facts. The Republican Congress, and their enablers don't want to talk facts. They'd rather talk about the Swift Boat liars. They'd rather insinuate on talk radio that Bill Clinton was engaging in treasonous activity when he visited the Soviet Union as a student. They'd rather engage in conspiracy mongering about Vince Foster. One need only peruse Free Republic, where a person's name and address was once posted with the explicit purpose of inciting violence against that individual (name a similar action on a liberal site) or listen to Michael Savage, or Rush Limbaugh, or read Ann Coulter's latest column for evidence of this. They deploy specious and sometimes libelous invective at the drop of a hat. When Limbaugh has been challenged on this, he simply retorts that he's an entertainer. G. Gordon Liddy once gave on-air instruction as to the most effective way to shoot a federal agent. How many Republican mouthpieces challenge anything they find disagreeable as "unpatriotic"? Name-calling and hand-waving is generally symptomatic of the right because as Lee
Atwater once observed, the Republican usually loses on the merits.

Attacking Bush is not the way to do it- presenting your own ideas and countering his programs with your own is the way to show us what you're made of. Don't like the way he's handling Iran? Show us what you've got- how are you going to stop them producing nuclear weapons and perhaps starting a nuclear jihad against Israel or American bases in the region? Simply saying (as many do) "well what about N. Korea, huh?" isn't an argument. It's a completely empty statement.

The burden is on George Bush and his administration to prove that his priorities are sensible, and his proposals workable. It's not the job of the opposition to make misguided priorities seem reasonable, and ridiculous policies seem doable. It's the burden of the Bush administration to explain why Iran would be any more dangerous with nukes then say, Pakistan, or those North Koreans you don't wish to discuss. And if he can make a convincing argument that somehow Iran is more dangerous than a military dictatorship like Pakistan with known Bin Laden sympathizers in high places, then he must explain why conventional strategies of deterrence won't work against Iran. It's not up to the opposition to acknowledge Bush's priorities. He talked about WMDs, then attacked a country with no WMDs--Iraq--while ignoring one with active nuclear, and long-range rocket programs capable of hitting the western United States--North Korea. By your logic Bush's critics are forced to propose solutions to problems mostly of Bush's imagination, like Iraq and now Iran, while being precluded from asking Bush and his sympathizers about real problems, like North Korea. Doesn't work that way.