Rhetorical Excesses Posted by: Dale Franks
on Thursday, June 09, 2005
Peggy Noonan wonders about the way Democrats speak about Republicans, and what it means.
[L]et's do a thought experiment. Close your eyes and imagine this.
President Bush is introduced at a great gathering in Topeka, Kan. It is the evening of June 9, 2005. Ruffles and flourishes, "Hail to the Chief," hearty applause from a packed ballroom. Mr. Bush walks to the podium and delivers the following address.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I want to speak this evening about how I see the political landscape. Let me jump right in. The struggle between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is a struggle between good and evil—and we're the good. I hate Democrats. Let's face it, they have never made an honest living in their lives. Who are they, really, but people who are intent on abusing power, destroying the United States Senate and undermining our Constitution? They have no shame.
But why would they? They have never been acquainted with the truth. You ever been to a Democratic fundraiser? They all look the same. They all behave the same. They have a dictatorship, and suffer from zeal so extreme they think they have a direct line to heaven. But what would you expect when you have a far left extremist base? We cannot afford more of their leadership. I call on you to help me defeat them!"
Imagine Mr. Bush saying those things, and the crowd roaring with lusty delight. Imagine John McCain saying them for that matter, or any other likely Republican candidate for president, or Ken Mehlman, the head of the Republican National Committee.
Can you imagine them talking this way? Me neither. Because they wouldn't.
Messrs. Bush, McCain, et al., would find talk like that to be extreme, damaging, desperate. They would understand it would tend to add a new level of hysteria to political discourse, and that's not good for the country. I think they would know such talk is unworthy in a leader, or potential leader, of a great democracy. I think they would understand that talk like that is destructive to the ties that bind—and to the speaker's political prospects.
Why don't Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean know this? And what does it mean that they do not know it?
For as you know, the color-coded phrases in the "Bush speech" above come from speeches and statements given by Sen. Clinton and Democratic chairman Dean recently. (Mrs. Clinton's comments are in green and Mr. Dean's in purple, and I changed "right" to "left.")
Clinton is likely the next Democratic nominee for president. Mr. Dean is the head of the Democratic Party. They are important and powerful. They may one day run the country. It is disturbing that they speak as they do.
Compare and contrast the current rhetoric among Democrats with that of President Kennedy, who during the off-year elections of 1962, said:
Why should the voters choose us and not the Republicans? The Republicans are equally patriotic, equally eager to see the country move ahead. What makes this election important, in 1962, is that the two parties have clear and distinct differences as to how to move this country ahead!
That's just rhetoric of an entirely different order. I certainly have no qualms about calling the Left's ideas stupid, but I don't assume people on the Left are evil. They may be a few issues short of a subscription, but they have good intentions.
But this constant drumbeat of how people on the right are evil fascists just flummoxes me. Quite apart from anything else, how does that attract anyone but the most committed Democratic party activists? If I'm an independent voter who has a generally liberal worldview, but who has some doubts about abortion on demand or gay marriage, am I really attracted to a party who paints me as a member of the American Taliban? I just don't see how you build a major party on hateful rhetoric that questions the humanity and decency rather than the policies of your opponents.
Of course, maybe that's not how you build a party. Maybe that's the rhetoric of a party that's deconstructing before our very eyes. There are some who argue that the Democratic Party, as currently constructed, is in a death spiral. It's too beholden to interest groups at the extreme Left of the electorate to be reformed, and is veering off into irrelevance. If so, then sometime in the next three election cycles, look for a more moderate center-Left coalition to begin forming.
Quite apart from anything else, such a movement would give John McCain something useful to do.
Can you imagine them talking this way? Me neither. Because they wouldn’t.
Messrs. Bush, McCain, et al., would find talk like that to be extreme, damaging, desperate. They would understand it would tend to add a new level of hysteria to political discourse, and that’s not good for the country. I think they would know such talk is unworthy in a leader, or potential leader, of a great democracy.
There is another very clear reason they would never speak that way (even if they felt it)... the MSM would be calling for impeachment, bringing up charges of Racism and every other ’x’ism you can think of. There simply is not a level field of reporting when it comes to these types of hyperbole. Period.
I think it comes down to loyalists vs. "the middle."
The Democrats are now trying to build their base, appealing to the extremes. Surely the extremes on the left love this sort of talk. I think the Democrats are counting on the fact that most of the great unwashed middle isn’t paying attention today.
Once the elections get closer, the Democrats, having convinced the base that they are communists/socialists/etc, can start appealing to the middle, knowing the base is exciting. The base attracted to this sort of talk will just think, "Oh, they’ve got to do that, but we know how they really are."
At the same time, when anyone else points out these statements, the middle will say, "Oh, they had to say that, they’re really like they are now and believe what they’re saying today."
That strategy gets the left loonies in early and tries to convince the middle to join in later. It’s worked for them before.
Yup, it sounds like the Dems are trying to take up the GOP’s campaign strategy of appealing first to the base. Problem is they don’t realize there’s more religious conservatives here than there are DemocraticUnderground/"Bush knew!!!" types. Also, the GOP approach depends on large actions & few words. Reversing this just makes you look very stupid.
I think the thing to watch the next few years will be a matter of which happens first: the collapse of the Democratic Party, or the completion of the Republican Party’s transformation into a "christian" party that frankly could care less how ridiculously huge the federal government is....:^(
Part of the problem is that the left has nothing to offer in the marketplace of ideas. Therefore, they can only carp and snipe. I would love to see some reasonable democrats come to the fore and challenge republican ideas and policies.
I am thoroughly disgusted with the do nothing, spend happy congress we have now. However, I listen to the "Chiken Little" rantings from the other side and there is nothing there I can take seriously, much less identify with.
I said it yesterday and I will say it again today. The Dems are doing it because it this very kind of rhetoric that the GOP used 11 years ago to gain control of the House. Here is Gingrich in October of 1994:
Describing for a group of lobbyists the Republican strategy for the midterm elections, Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said last week that Clinton Democrats should be portrayed as "the enemy of normal Americans." He went on to say that if the GOP wins control of the House, the party will use "subpoena power" and create a select committee on corruption to investigate the Clinton administration.
The enemies of normal Americans? That is as flammable as anything any Democrat has said. Noonan is either ignorant of history, or a liar. My guess is both.
Compare this enemy of the people language with what makes up Noonan’s "hypothetical"
Who are they, really, but people who are intent on abusing power, destroying the United States Senate and undermining our Constitution? They have no shame.
Again, back in 1994 no one was calling Gingrich out on this one. And he was effectively the head of the GOP at the time he made this statement. To the contrary, this kind of rhetoric led to the GOP gaining 50 seats in the House.
When the Right spews hate, it is a winning strategy. When the Left does, the right wing noise machine, including the blogs, all of a sudden get all high and mighty,forgetting that it was this same kind of rhetoric that gave them their position as the majority party in the House, which they retain today.
So why the difference? Well, for one, wingnuts are just better whiners. Whine, whine, whine. "oh those mean Democrats. Boo hoo." For two, the right wing’s practice of working the refs is finally paying off. The MSM has been so cowed by the right wing, they can’t help but kiss their ass.
Dale, a much more interesting post would explain why this kind of rhetoric helped the GOP in ’94, but is bound to hurt the Dems in ’06.
Lets not forget that 4 years earlier, as Gingrich was trying to move the GOP into majority status, he endorsed a GOPAC memo that called on Repubs to use the following words to describe Dems:
"anti-: flag, family, child, jobs"
"cheat"
"disgrace"
"liberal"
"lie"
"traitors"
Remember, this was Newt Gingrich, who led the GOP to majority status in 1994. And this was a planned rhetorical strategy, one which was still being carried out on the eve of the election in 1994. And it was successful, probably even beyond Newt’s dreams.
And then Peggy Noonan says this:
Messrs. Bush, McCain, et al., would find talk like that to be extreme, damaging, desperate. They would understand it would tend to add a new level of hysteria to political discourse, and that’s not good for the country. I think they would know such talk is unworthy in a leader, or potential leader, of a great democracy. I think they would understand that talk like that is destructive to the ties that bind—and to the speaker’s political prospects.
No Peggy, it’s not - just ask the GOP.
Here’s some more from old Peggy about the Dems’ rhetoric:
How do people who are not part of the Democratic base react to their statements? I think something like this: What’s wrong with these people? Don’t they understand they lower things with their name calling and bitter language? If this is how they feel free to present themselves in public, what will they do and say in private if they ever run the country?
Gosh Peggy, I don’t remember you getting all uppity when the head of the GOP not only called Democrats traitors, and anti-American, and liars, and cheats, and everything else, and called on his colleagues to do the same. I didn’t hear you saying "What’s wrong with Newt"? To the contrary, your newspaper was gushing with praise for Newt and his revolution.
Noonan is the worst - a liar, a shill, and, worse yet, a re-writer of history. Is Pravda still hiring?
Because Gingrich served as a lightning rod in a position where being nasty had less of a negative effect since he only truly had to answer to his district, whereas Dean is in a PR position where it matters if people like you. How’s that?
Reverse the roles & it’d have the same effect. In that BizzaroWorld, House minority leader Dean would just be a firebrand riling up the party, and GOP chairman Gingrich would be a moron scaring away people that he needs to convince to give him money.
Of course the GOP is working the refs, all politicians work the refs, that’s nothing new. If there’s one thing politicians know how to do, it’s blame someone else. I personally consider such rhetoric dumb in both instances myself, but what I think doesn’t matter, I don’t have a party.
Dale, a much more interesting post would explain why this kind of rhetoric helped the GOP in ’94, but is bound to hurt the Dems in ’06.
The difference is simple: in 1994, the Republicans offered the Contract with America. In short, they offered people a reason to vote for the Republican, not just rhetoric-filled reasons to vote against Democrats. If the Dems can’t put together reasons to vote for them, their rhetoric will fail them.
Because Gingrich served as a lightning rod in a position where being nasty had less of a negative effect since he only truly had to answer to his district, whereas Dean is in a PR position where it matters if people like you. How’s that?
Wrong - on the eve of the election, Gingrich was clearly on his way to becoming the leader of the GOP in the House. He declared on the eve of the election that he had the votes to do it - and he was right. The majority of the House Represnetatives voted him to be their leader in spite of, or more likely because of, his rherotic that Dems were "traitors" and enemies of "normal Americans."
Dean, by contrast, wasn’t elected by the people to be the head of the DNC. More to the point, you and I aren’t paying his wages, whereas in 1994 I paid to hear Gingrich spew his rhetoric. The fact that Dean is a private citizen working for a private organization only strengthens the contrast.
If MK’s point is that Newt Gingrich engaged in low-road discourse similar to that used by Dean, well.....I agree. And frankly, I don’t recall what was being said in 1994. Unfortunately, we’ll just have to take MKs word that nobody criticized him for it. (or don’t take his word...your call)
However, I do recall the Democrats positively loathing Gingrich and attributing the coarsening of politics to him. I recall the Democrats saying of Gingrich the same thing many are now saying about Dean.
So, which is it, MK? A pox on both their houses, or neither?
Newt was indeed very over-the-top at times, maybe not as much as Dean but close, and certainly as much as Hillary. But recall:
1. He was a House leader. The House always plays rougher (think of DeLay and Pelosi today). Hillary wants to be president, Dean is a party chair.
2. Newt was pilloried in the media. "Angry White Male." Clinton blaming him for Oklahoma City.
3. Newt’s bomb-throwing was part of his undoing. In 1994, many people were more focused on the Contract or on their local candidate’s elucidation of it. When more national attention zeroed on Newt, things went badly for him. Newt was an effective revolutionary, but he made it impossible for himself to govern.
On the other hand, Noonan has forgotten a lot if she puts McCain with Bush. McCain, who won in NH in 2000 by railing against "the truth-twisting politics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore" and promising to "beat Al Gore like a drum," McCain who called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell - people in his own party - "forces of evil." He may be Mr. Bipartisanship today, but McCain can play rough with the best of them.
1. Bush and other top Republicans are smart enough not to pull that kind of rhetoric; they have surrogates who can do it for them ... and there are plenty of Republicans/conservatives out there who don’t shy from "traitor," "culture of death," and "pro-death" rhetoric. So you can’t really claim that all conservatives’ hands are clean.
2. Current leaders lack President Clinton’s unique talent, which was on display at the Democratic Convention. Clinton talked about how the Republicans were good people, committed to the betterment of the country ... and then he accused them of killing puppies and eating them. I still don’t get that.
If Dean keeps it up, he’s going to find himself on the sidelines, just like Newt. Thats to bad, for me. The other day I heard him talk about the three things they have to sell. One of them was portable pensions. First thing I thought was, so he’s telling me that if a company sets aside some money for my retirement, its mine to own, if I leave early. But if I put money into a retirement system run by the government, its theirs. A lot of people think Rove is a genuis, but how do we know. These guys have been handing him situations like this for a while.
What was said in 94, MK, was true, and was provable... and so moved the American voter. WHat’s just tearing the Dmeocrats up today is that making the smae noises about Republicans doesn’t work with the american people because by and large, it’s NOT true.
Fascinating pathology you’ve got there, Bithead. It’s bad when Democrats say mean things about Republicans, but when Republicans call Democrats "traitors", etc...well, that’s because they are. Clearly, civil discourse is not high on your list of priorities...so why do you mind Dean?
For over a decade, both sides have employed bitter rhetoric. The Republicans have succeeded where the Dems have failed because they have also sold the majority of the countery on their package of ideas. Steverino got it about right. Where’s their plan for everything? Or anything? Simply scalding the Republicans isn’t going to cut it.
Jon is right. Newt’s over the top rhetoric hurt him and the Republican party and why he is not considered a major figure in politics anymore. Dean probably has the same fate. His rhetoric was widely criticized, far more than Dean’s is today. If anything this has so far shown the media’s double standard against Newt. I would get exercised about it, but I am not a Republican, or a conservative and I never liked Newt and, well I guess I really wouldn’t get exercised about it. I guess I was just lying.
You’re putting them on equal footing? This is an inherrently questionable idea, Jon, because it ignores even the possibility that one of the two arguments is actually CORRECT.
