Many years ago, in the days before Michael Moore had completely sold his soul to socialist propaganda and mashed potatoes, he produced what was actually an entertaining little film entitled “Canadian Bacon”. The story takes place in the aftermath of the Cold War. An unpopular president, played by Alan Alda, faces a difficult reelection campaign mired in a bad economy and the lack of any central issues that his administration could take credit for. His “ends justify the means” advisors come up with the harebrained scheme to invent a bogus war threat with, of all people, the Canadians.
A couple of years later in a slightly less light-hearted flick, “Wag the Dog” was released. Again in this film, the President faces a doubtful reelection bid, this time because of a sex scandal with a young girl (the movie was ironically released within weeks of the Monica Lewinsky debacle). Similarly, the White House spin-doctors decide the best course of action is to divert the nation’s attention by inventing the rumor of a war with the obscure country of Albania.
It’s an old plot. Rumors of war are better than war itself for political expediency. It gives the President opportunity to appear “presidential” and in charge, while casting aspersions on the inexperience and “riskiness” of his opponent. At the same time, the consequences of an actual war; the casualties, the price tag, the need for policy decisions; are non-existent. The problem with rumors of war, is that unlike real wars, they have a relatively short shelf life. To paraphrase Lincoln, ‘You can fool some of the people some of the time… but you can’t fool them forever!’. So timing becomes an important factor in the development of a rumor of war. Ample time before the election is required for the messaging to have its full effect, but not so much time that the naivete of the public becomes exhausted.
With the advent of the election season threatening issues loom for the administration. The economy, though marginally improving, is hardly a success to hang your hat on. The war in Afghanistan, the “good war”, is increasingly appearing to be a complete failure. Foreign policy has not resulted in a more stable world scene. The health care initiative continues to be extremely unpopular and is in imminent danger of being determined to be unconstitutional. There’s the Fast and Furious scandal, and green energy money holes like Solyndra. Perhaps of most immediate concern is the high price of gasoline, and the extent that the cause can be laid at the feet of the President’s energy policy decisions. November is only a few months away; it would seem to be a good time to throw a few things at the wall and see what sticks.
In an ingenious twist on the “rumor of war” strategy, instead of using a foreign country or ideology as the imminent threat that the opposition is unqualified to battle; the administration’s spin doctors have chosen the opposition itself to be the sinister “enemy within”. By identifying the Republicans as the enemy in a “War on Women”, or a “War on the Poor”, or a “War on Minorities”; every policy position that can in any way be shown to negatively impinge on various people groups can be cited as evidence of these “wars” and the evil intent of the Great Satan (the Republican Party). If you disagree with a black President, you are clearly a racist. If you are for voter identification laws, it’s because you hate minorities and poor people. If you suggest that Church groups should not be forced to provide contraception against their conscience, you hate women. If you even imply that the health care mandate might be unconstitutional, you are unelected political hacks who hate women, the poor and minorities.
The beauty of these wars are that the infrastructure to support the rumors is already there. These are all wars that we have already fought, and in which we have, at least to some extent, been victorious. Advocacy groups die hard, and some soldiers dread victory. The evidence of these “rumors of war” is generally exaggerated, or anecdotal. It is much like the end of World War II. Japan had conceded defeat, the major part of the conflagration was ended and despite the effects of the damage of the conflict, the war had been resolved… it was over. Yet there were on certain islands Japanese soldiers who did not know the war was over who continued to fight, and who needed to be dealt with. One would term them a nuisance, but hardly a continuation of the World War. Likewise, isolated incidents of racism may point to work remaining to be done, but it does not indicate a “racist party” or a “racist nation”. Isolated incidents of misogyny or discrimination do not forebode a return to the frontier days or a “War on Women”. Policy positions are generally more the result of viable political philosophy than some dark malevolent intent. Accusing the opposition of operating entirely from “the heart of darkness” may energize the base, but it ends the discussion, and the pros and cons of the positions remain undiscovered by rational debate.
Republicans are hardly guiltless in this tactic, but they do seem less adept. Their “wars” are generally centered on “future shock” type targets, with less sympathetic “victims”. The “War on Christmas”, the “War on Religion”, the “War on Success” all garner little sympathy, and rarely merit huge advocacy groups. Conspiracy theories generally emanate from fringe elements of the party, are ineffective, and often are used by the opposition in a political jiujitsu to demonstrate how crazy conservatives are. The result is the same though, rational discussion is sacrificed in deference to accusations and charges of villainy.
IMHO: There are at least two very different visions of what is best for the future of our nation. The people who desire to destroy the country, hate women or minorities, have no compassion for the poor, seek the annihilation of Religion, who truly desire to “eat the rich”, or intentionally sell out our nation to our enemies… frankly are few. That the policies advocated by some truly well meaning people might end in disaster is a very real possibility; but the debate needs to be centered on the policy, not on some imagined grand wickedness of an entire political party. For productive debate to occur the presumption of good intentions is a necessity. When you describe your political adversaries as demons, fascists, bigots, racists, haters, warmongers, communists, traitors or just plain stupid… how do you then sit down with them and hope to run a country? How do you engage them in a reasonable exchange of ideas? Do we always need a crisis to put aside such accusations and work together as Americans?
Political bigotry is no different than any other form of bigotry. It denies the value of personhood to another on the basis of a label. It dismisses the positions of the opposition without consideration, by deeming their proponents as evil or stupid. Resorting to political bigotry in an election is a common practice, and usually indicative of a bankruptcy of ideas. Unfortunately it plays well to a certain subset of voters; those who prefer name calling and staging to an honest debate of ideas. Instead of the marketplace of ideas, they choose the arena of hyperbole; instead of the Areopagus, the Coliseum. It would be better if they stayed home and watched TV on election day… maybe the WWF is on.
