March 23, 2004

Attempting to frame the debate
Posted by McQ

T. Bevan at "Real Clear Politics" while discussing the fallout from the Clarke "charges" makes the point:

For the better part of three years we've been listening to liberals whine that Bush is an overly aggressive cowboy, a unilateralist Nazi trampling on our civil rights at home and the feelings of our European friends abroad in pursuit of a "war" that many on the left have repeatedly said did and does not exist.

Now eight months before the election and we're getting a full 180 degree pivot from the same people accusing Bush of being soft on terror. It's as fake and phony as the wrinkle-free skin on John Kerry's forehead.

That's because the Democrats are making a valiant effort to take the most potent Bush issue away from him (or at least neutralize it) by "framing the debate". If they can successfully portray Bush as fumbling the "War on Terror" then they can at least make it a neutral issue. That's why you've seen the White House come back so hard on the accusations.

RCP points this out quite well:

For Kerry to have any chance at all of winning in November, Democrats know they have to destroy Bush's standing as a War President and they have to do it fast - before the Bush team can plant the image in the public's mind that John Kerry is soft on national security.

To accomplish this daunting task, Democrats have resorted not just to an argument of process (i.e. Bush has made progress battling terrorism but would be doing a better job if not for mistakes X, Y & Z) but have coalesced around what I would call "The Big Lie:" that Bush is and has always been soft on terror.

But there's a second side to this. If they're not successful in this portrayal, then their "framing the debate" ploy will fail. It will have placed the issue at the top of the tier for news coverage which will keep it as the major issue in the eyes of the American people. That is exactly where the Bush administration wants this issue. It is their biggest winner. War time president, "War on Terror", security, defense.

If the Dems manage to make this "soft on terror" stick (and I have some very serious doubts about their ability to do so), they've got a good shot at taking Bush out. But my guess is (and it is purely a guess) is Clarke's so-called "revelations" will quickly fade when its pointed out that its essentially "old news". Couple that with the fact that when 9/11 happened we went after al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden in Afganistan a full year and half before we did anything in Iraq and you have a dog that just won't hunt.

But on the Republican side, this is the issue they want in the news, and somethimes, as most Hollywood stars would tell you, even negative press is better than no press at all. It at least keeps the issues you're weak on out of the top spot. And it allows you to reframe the terror issue to your advantage ... which is precisely what the White House is in the middle of doing.

TrackBack

Comments

The "frame" is that terror is a "law enforcement" issue -- detectives should be tracking bin Laden and al Qaida, blue suited policemen should apprehended him and his henchmen alive, and he and they should stand trial by jury for their offenses against good order. An actual WAR with a whole country like IRAQ is a distraction. So saith the social liberal democrats.

There are at least two counter claims. First, it may be reasonable to claim the resources of the U.S. are sufficient to accomplish both police work AND war-fighting. Chasing al Qaida AND destroying the Baath tyranny. Breaking up funding networks AND busting up bunkers. Dealing with the current criminal, bin Laden, AND ending an old war with Saddam. Walking AND chewing gum -- at the same time. The danger of this approach is that many people have grave concerns that Shrub can't, in practice, walk while chewing gum ...

So, the second claim. Police work has been tried, has been shown to fail, and so is deserving of secondary place in present presidential stratiegery. On this line it may be argued that getting hold of a criminal is not the end of the problem -- Milsovic being the poster child. Apprehend a terrorist, and there spring forth others who are happy to terrorize the world. But, show that support for terrorism leads to U.S. occupation of your nation, well then, -- who knows? Let's try it and see what happens.

The counter claim to the second argument is that it puts the U.S. squarely into the business of "nation building" -- which Candidate Shrub some four years ago came out squarely against.
Either Shrub has "flip-flopped" on the issue; or he's trying to lie, now, and claim that writing new constitutions for Afghanistan and Iraq; shaking up the national goals of Pakistan and Libya, and supporting change in Haiti and the Phillipines, are somehow other than "nation building."

I think the Shrub should come forward and embrace the charge. "I used to be against nation building. I was wrong. I've been called before the Light and shown the True Path -- and that America must share the Vision of Liberty and Justice not only for ourselves, but in fact, of Liberty and Justice for All. And if I have to send in the Marines to share the vision at gunpoint, by Jesus I'll do it!"

(Well, maybe that last sentence might be omitted from the final draft...)


Posted by: Pouncer at March 23, 2004 10:53 AM

I have to disagree on a couple of points, Pouncer.

1. They attempted to frame the debate as a "law enforcement issue", but it has fallen flat. One simply has to point to our previous treatment of the issue that way under the Clinton administration and then point to 9/11 as the result. Its a dog that won't hunt.

2. Bush's desire to stay out of nation building as not something the US wanted to be involved in was said in peace. We're now at war, and like it or not, war requires nationbuilding. So it wasn't a flip at all, but instead the reality that comes with war. The shakeups in the other nations you mention are more of a result of the Iraq invasion than any attempt at "nationbuilding". I see it as a real stretch to attribute their change in national goals as "nationbuilding". Effecting policy ... yes. But that doesn't require nationbuilding to happen.

Posted by: McQ at March 23, 2004 11:11 AM