Political debate getting too ugly too soon
In the last few weeks the language of national political debate has turned too ugly, too soon. The temperature is rising, and I have felt it in the rising of my own political blood.
A few weeks ago I wrote a column on President Obama’s budget that I opened with a disparaging characterization of the president. The response was powerful. I received fivefold the normal e-mail responses. The column drew vastly more comment at various political Web sites. I was invited on national television and radio to discuss it — where the focus was on my intemperate words more than my policy analysis.
And I am not alone on both sides of the political divide. In the last fortnight the most-high toned, rarely partisan, Pulitzer prize-winning Brahmins of Washington print commentary have used the following phrases to describe the president or his words: “double talker,” “opportunistic,” “brazen deception,” a “great pretender,” practicing “deception at the core” of his plans, with his words a “fantasy.”
On the president’s side, even a high-toned Pulitzer prize winner has called the Republican arguments “fraudulent,” and intended to “push the U.S. econ- omy over the edge of catastrophe.” A prominent opponent of the president was identified as having a history of drug dependency.
The White House itself ran a campaign to demonize Rush Limbaugh. And according to Politico over the March 14-15 weekend, President Obama’s transition chief is now coordinating a “left-wing conspiracy” that intends to personally go after the president’s critics. Politico quotes one of the participants: “There’s a coordination in terms of exposing the people who are trying to come out against reform — they’ve all got backgrounds and histories and pasts, and it’s not taking long to unearth that and to unleash that, because we’re all working together.”
Things have gotten nasty fast even on the same sides. Conservatives have had two very vituperative intramural fights over Rush Limbaugh and over Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. While on the liberal side, Jon Stewart has been personally very rough with fellow Obama supporter Jim Cramer — after Mr. Cramer sharply criticized the president’s economic policy.
And in the media, Newsweek had a full cover picture of Rush Limbaugh with what looks like black tape across his mouth with the word “enough!” on it. For a storied journalistic enterprise such as Newsweek to suggest the forcible silencing of dissent should be considered shocking to all journalists and others who champion the First Amendment right of free speech. And we are less than two months into President Obama’s term.
In my 30 years as a Washington player, I have never seen the tone deteriorate on both sides so fast. In the summer of 1993, Newt Gingrich was still working cooperatively with President Clinton on passing the North American Free Trade Agreement. While there were periodic outbursts, it took a couple of years for things to get really ugly back then. Even George Bush, who came to office viewed by some of his critics as an illegitimate president because of the way he got into the White House, was able to work in partnership with no less than Ted Kennedy on edu- cation reform during his first year in office.
The old joke — that debates in academic lounges are so nasty because so little is at risk — does not, I think, apply to national politics right now. Rather, precisely because we stand on the edge of possible economic catastrophe in a world that seems more out of control than any time since 1939, both sides feel more deeply about policy decisions soon to be made.
We earnestly believe — on both sides — that decisions made in Washington in the next several months or few years may drastically reshape the very nature of our country forever. So policy argument easily slips into personal calumny in a desperate effort to win the debate.
But precisely because these fateful policy decisions may well be decided by a few votes in the Senate — leaving almost half the country appalled at the decision — it is vital to dial back the rhetoric of the debate to make more manageable acceptance of such decisions. At least I am going to try to dial back my rhetoric.
Don’t construe the foregoing as an ode to goo-goo bipartisanship. I stand with Maggie Thatcher in believing in conviction politics — where individuals and parties do not compromise their first principles in order to get along. It is better to lose a vote or an election on principle and let the public judge whose policy was the wiser, than to stand for nothing — and thus stand for anything.
But with gun, ammunition and gold sales way up these last few months, the American public obviously is bracing for some very rough times in some very practical ways.
And, as we Americans will be in the same boat as we enter what may be a pitiless storm, we owe it to ourselves to be as united as possible. We will need to bail out water together — not bash each other over the head with the bailing pails.
Here is the deal. Fight vehemently on all sides over the fateful policy disputes. But for the opposition: Be respectful of the office of president and its current occupant and his supporters. And for the president’s side: Respect dissent — don’t try to chill its exercise either directly or by disparaging the character or motives of the opposition.
Tony Blankley is the author of “American Grit: What It Will Take To Survive and Win in the 21st Century” and vice president of the Edelman public-relations firm in Washington.