P.M. Carpenter

Fear and loathing and, well, more fear and loathing

If it weren't for adolescent sarcasm and shameless fearmongering and malignant Clinton-scapegoating, would the GOP have anything to say at all?

Party pols keep protesting that self-inflicted wounds like the Foley scandal suck the oxygen from their "good-news" message, which, they claim, they feverishly want to present. But that's as far as they ever go, mumbling, now and then, something about the economy – you know, the one IVed to a deficit-bloating, government credit card – but then scurrying off to more sarcasm, fearmongering and historical scapegoating.

And issues, Republicans moan, issues are what we want to air. We have issues (that's for sure) and we're on the right (far-right) side of them. But ah-shucks-golly-gee no one wants to talk issues these days.

Right. Like North Korea?

That country's flaky little chief executive's testing of a nuclear device – as the 1960s humorist Tom Lehrer observed, they have "devices," we have bombs – is a case in point. If ever there was an issue ripe for debate in contemporary framing, this is it, and Republicans are welcome to have at it. The testing took place on Bush's watch, it was Bush's policies that contributed to this frightful state of affairs, and the advisability or non-advisability of those policies is what should stand on center stage.

Which is where critical Democrats put it, "press[ing] the argument that North Korea’s claimed advance was a byproduct of President Bush’s decision to wage war against Iraq ... while doing too little to confront a real threat developing in North Korea."

Yet how have Republicans responded to this perfectly legitimate, contemporary framing? First, with Clinton-scapegoating, of course.

"I would remind ... Democrats critical of the Bush administration’s policies that the framework agreement [the Clinton] administration negotiated was a failure,” grumbled Senator John McCain.

One down.

Then rapidly followed the fearmongering: "Republicans say that any time national security is front and center, it is good news for them," reported the NYT. And sure enough: "It reminds us that we live in an extremely dangerous world," Washington senatorial candidate Mike McGavick eagerly declared of the anxiety-generating nuclear test, right on cue.

Two down...

... leaving only sarcasm to round out the quintessential Republican playbook. Going for the trifecta with ease: "On Tuesday, the Republican National Committee circulated a [2000] photograph of Madelaine K. Albright, Mr. Clinton’s secretary of state, clinking glasses with Mr. Kim.... Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, said ... that Ms. Albright had presented Mr. Kim a basketball autographed by Michael Jordan. His committee coined a phrase for it — 'basketball diplomacy' — which Mr. Mehlman sprinkled through his remarks."

Three down, and a perfect ten.

The only thing missing from these irrelevant histories and compelled bowel movements and prepubescent sarcasm was any discussion or rational defense of Mr. Bush's policies – policies adamantly hailed by Republicans at large as a – the – remedy to past, failed policies.

Sarcasm, fearmongering and scapegoating. The Republican message. And they say the Dems have no ideas?

W's White House: A refuge for incompetents

It would be impossible to assess the Bush administration's current state of foreign policy more accurately – meaning starkly – than the WP's Glenn Kessler and Peter Baker have done in their lead paragraph on North Korea's "device" test:

"Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an 'axis of evil' comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion."

What a mess, or, rather, what a heap of messes – an escalating mound of stubborn, nerve-wracking, neuroses-inducing and largely self-imposed messes. Welcome to the resulting realities of the swaggering, surrealpolitik neocon Weltanschauung.

Bill Clinton's former deputy national security advisor, James Steinberg, put it another, perhaps more diplomatic, way to the Post. Resurrecting a classic Reaganite shtick: "With respect to the axis of evil, are you better off today than you were four years ago?... It's clear that the answer is we're worse off with respect to the nuclear proliferation problem in both North Korea and Iran than four to six years ago, and I would argue we're worse off in our overall security because of the situation in Iraq."

My only question to that is: With whom would he have a sober argument? Is there anyone outside the goofweed-smoking White House crowd who any longer would even bother debating that we're far worse off in all three arenas?

Somehow, but I assume through the power of unintelligent design, this administration manages to get virtually everything precisely ass-backward. After Condi Rice screwed up just enough to earn a major promotion to State, Stephen Hadley took the loose reins at the National Security Council, where he maintains its stumblebum, SNAFU tradition. For example in the North Korean test's explosive aftermath, Mr. Hadley defensively blustered that "We were criticized daily for being too unilateral" in taking on Iraq, "So here we are, working with our allies and friends, stressing diplomacy."

Yet Hadley's hypersensitivity only served to highlight the White House's gross and persistent mistakes. When stressing multilateral diplomacy was in order with respect to Iraq, we acted unilaterally. And when stressing unilateral diplomatic confrontation with respect to North Korea was in order, we insisted on complicating multilateral delays.

The Bush administration's foreign-policy WunderKinder are so insulated, so "bubbled," in the modern vernacular, it brings to mind an observation once made by Madame Chiang Kai-Shek – who, for sure, witnessed firsthand the contours of insulated thinking: "Every clique is a refuge for incompetence."

Bitterly commenting on the ass-backwardness that has come to define this administration was former Senator Sam Nunn, now an increasingly frustrated voice in the all too neglected wilderness of nuclear nonproliferation efforts. "What [the North Korean crisis] tells you is that we started at the wrong end of the 'axis of evil,'" said Nunn. "We started with the least dangerous of the countries, Iraq, and we knew it at the time. And now we have to deal with that."

Unfortunately the "we" who will have to deal with it won't be the we who created the mess. It'll just get added to the proliferating list of messes to be inherited by the next administration – which will likely be Democratic, and which will undoubtedly get the blame for being unable to reverse all the damage done by the current clique of ass-backward incompetents.

Of bumper stickers and laundry lists

In Sunday's "Opinion" the New York Times invited 18 Republican and Democratic strategists to square off on how their respective parties could best frame this election cycle's message.

Taken as a whole, reading these strategic exercises was instructive, but perhaps not quite in the way intended. I'll boil them down as succinctly as possible. See what impression strikes you as you read.

Jennifer Grossman, former speechwriter for 41, led off for the Republicans, saying they should "return the focus [from Foleyville] to the economy, or to immigration, or to the fight against radical Islamic nihilism." John McCain's chief of staff, Mark Salter, emphasized they should "remind voters we remain the party best able to provide effective governance in a time of change, instability and war."

Satan's scion Ari Fleischer observed that "Republicans have vowed to make the tax cuts permanent. Democrats have pledged to reverse them.... As for war and peace, stand strong." Dan Quayle's erstwhile toxic wordsmith, Lisa Schiffren, relied on the chestnuts that keep on giving, saying that Republicans should – you just knew this was coming, right? -- "Silently thank Bill Clinton for lowering the moral bar for officeholders. It’s time to project strength abroad.... [Democrats'] recently clarified position on domestic security [and you knew this bugaboo was coming as well] is that we shouldn’t wiretap terrorists, but must read the e-mail correspondence of gay congressmen."

Rich Bond, former RNC chair, huckstered the shibboleths of “Tough on terror, economic expansion, dangerous Democrats.” Former House-member Tom Campbell encouraged his old pals to stress how the party is "protecting us from terrorism; creating a thriving American economy." And ink-slinger R. Emmett Tyrrell, the American Prospect's founder, was in a laconically affirmative mood: "Affirm growth economics. Affirm national security."

Among the Republicans, only Jay Heiler, a former gubernatorial chief of staff, limited his thoughts – sarcastically, ala Ms. Schiffren – to the Foley Affair: "For us the thing is a shame, but for them it’s more or less a policy." Last, former House warhorse Dick Armey sat, with hands wringing nostalgically, contemplating conservatism's libertarian roots long forgotten: "Reining in federal spending, reforming a broken tax code, passing realistic immigration reform and creating an ownership society through entitlement reform." Good luck with that, Dick.

This synopsis is expanding monstrously, a development offensive to the art of synopsis-writing, so I'll forgo introducing familiar Democrats and simply post their essential comments.

Rahm Emanuel said they should stress "a Democratic Congress that will demand real accountability and oversight [on Iraq, homeland security]." Pollster Stanley Greenberg wrote, "Run on the economy and Iraq." Jody Powell echoed Emanuel on the need for wartime "Congressional oversight [and] accountability." Joe Trippi, besides advocating a shift in Iraq war policy, suggested that "energy policy and health care will carry the day for Democrats in November."

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen wrote "I suggest we concentrate on a single issue: health care," and blogger Kevin Drum found "this year’s Democratic strategy simple: make sure the public knows exactly who’s in charge of this wretched assemblage [in government]."

Michael Eric Dyson, a religious studies professor, said left-of-center Democrats (and presumably the base?) have "got to stop hating themselves and come out of the liberal closet.... Tell the truth: the war is bad; our government, as the response to Hurricane Katrina showed, is incompetent and uncaring; and our working classes are over-burdened." Emily's List president Ellen Malcolm emphasized the distaff side of things: "If Democrats — party leaders, candidates and progressive allies — communicate with enough women [on, as examples, Social Security, affordable college, ending the Iraq mess], we can counter negative Republican campaigns that aim to get women to stay home." And finally Howard Dean proposed "standing up for change with a unified agenda" without mentioning specifics, excepting "a defense policy that’s tough and smart" and assuring readers they will all spell "a new direction."

Let's see, by my count seven of nine Republicans emphasized "security, the economy, security, the economy, security, the economy, and, of course, security and the economy."

On the other hand, three Democrats proposed as the chief campaign message that of accountability; two Democrats, that of oversight; one, the economy; three, Iraq; one, energy; two, health care; one, Katrina; one, middle-class woes; and one, well ... something or other that's unified.

So which is a typically befuddled voter who only occasionally familiarizes himself with issues going to remember on election day? Bumper-sticker trumpeting on domestic security and the economy? Or alternative policy arguments over the laundry list of accountability, oversight, Iraq, energy, health care, Katrina's implications, middle-class squeezing, women's interests and, well ... something or other that's unified.

Less than one month to go and Republicans are selling two messages to Democrats' eight-and-a-half. There exists fierce anti-incumbent sentiment out there. Failing to competently exploit it would seem a near-wizardly Merlinesque accomplishment. But then again, we're talking the Democratic Party.

When in God's name will it learn the indispensable value of simplicity?

Those poor, poor, victimized dears

No group loves disparaging the psychobabble of group-victimization more than your average Republican pols – and oh, my, are they ever average in so many ways. But let any cloud descend on them, expose any of their malfeasances, attack their party in any way, and presto! -- tear glands swell, voices choke and par excellence cries of victimization flood the airwaves.

The party's decades-long lecture to those of us made of weaker stuff on the girlie-man pitfalls of VictimSpeak have, of course, mostly glistened as an advertisement of its manly ruggedness – more of a political talking point to be hustled to its base of culturally discontented whites than a genuinely thoughtful caveat about the harmful consequences of avoiding personal or group responsibility. In short, the message has always been grounded in emotive, argumentum-ad-populum racist appeal.

Fair enough, one could say, in that politics is, after all, a quintessentially popular sport. For just as long Democratic pols have played the same game in reverse, assuring their various groups-as-base that social constructions, and only social constructions, account for their every sad situation. As the sport of hogwashed generalizations goes, both parties are varsity players.

What separates and distinguishes Republicans, however, is their unequaled artistry in that other strain of American political tradition – hypocrisy. Again, Democrats have always flipped and flopped as any political party is wont, even obliged at times, to do, but in this category one cannot say they have flipped and flopped with the best of them, because no one – absolutely no one – has ever played the game as well as modern Republicans. They are the Babes, the Lou Gehrigs, the Hank Aarons of hypocrisy, and their record-holding feats aren't likely ever to be outdone.

As you probably expected, this background is intended only as a lead-up to the increasingly amusing Foley Affair. I say amusing, because a stomach-turning incident that could have been dispatched with ethically ruthless efficiency has rapidly devolved into a supreme tragicomedy at the hands of those self-proclaimed victimized hypocrites – Republican Congressmen.

"We're taking responsibility," announced the House "supervisor," Dennis Hastert, yesterday, just after clarifying that "I haven't done anything wrong." Go figure.

But what made things so uproarious were Mr. Hastert's VictimSpeak comments, wrapped in the high art of Hypocrisy, to the Chicago Tribune: "The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros. I saw Bill Clinton's adviser Richard Morris was saying these guys knew about this all along." (Hastert, quite innocently I'm sure, omitted that Dick Morris now hates Bill Clinton as much as he loves Sean Hannity.)

Stunning is the only word for it. Victimization is a real-life phenomenon to be reckoned with after all. Dennis is a victim, his party colleagues are victims, they take full responsibility for doing positively nothing wrong. The sinister liberal media are out to get them, opposition operatives who were just as surprised (and naturally pleased) as anyone are possessed of conspiratorial evil, and somehow, oddly, very oddly, the specter of George Soros looms over the whole sordid affair.

Mr. Hastert, he of usually moderate temperament, has indeed partaken of the flip-flip, flop-flop GOP Kool-Aid. It was only a matter of time. No man can surround himself with the party's professional mixers year after year without some of that professionalism rubbing off.

So what is to be done?

Just enjoy.

Extremism is no vice – not any longer

In the political realm I'd take a bathhouse full of page-prowling Mark Foleys over a heterosexually monogamous George W. Bush any day.

As the nation sits transfixed on Republican inner-circle "inappropriateness," the commander in chief is running around the country debasing his office, his party, and the national conscience like never before. His shamelessness would have given Joe McCarthy pause and the Founding Fathers second thoughts, but stacked up against voyeuristic scandal, it fails to rate the front page.

Earlier this week, the president charged before a group of the few California faithful that "Time and time again, the Democrats ... talk tough on terror, but when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out."

Bush prides himself on being unacquainted with any such side, of course, and as political attacks go, the "soft" charge lies almost within contemporary boundaries of acceptable partisan derision. But, ponders the president, why stop at almost acceptable when there's gleeful contempt for contemporary boundaries to be had?

So he pushed further, now conjuring up the rhetorically pathetic straw-man argument: "If you don't think we should be listening in on the terrorist, then you ought to vote for the Democrats. If you want your government to continue listening in when al-Qaeda planners are making phone calls into the United States, then you vote Republican."

Intellectually insulting enough, right? Pathetic enough, right? Even laughable enough?

Not quite. For the night before, Bush had laid bare just how malodorous his politics have become, declaring at a fundraiser in Nevada that "It sounds like [Democrats] think the best way to protect the American people is wait until we're attacked again."

With those 19 words, Bush reconfigured the boundaries of political discourse, no matter how contemptible they may be, and no matter how contemptuous of common decency.

That any president of the United States could, would proclaim that the nation's loyal opposition is content, even eager, to countenance the potential slaughter of its fellow citizens just to score political points in the interim is so wretchedly loathsome, it leaves one slackjawed.

Well, it left me slackjawed anyway, and here I thought I was finally immune to the numbing effects of Bush's ever-escalating tactical felonies committed against good taste, collective decency and acceptable boundaries. In my book – and I should hope in anyone's book – those 19 words outdid the infamous 16 of three years past with their stunning precision of deliberate ill intent.

His words were no soon-regretted, off-the-cuff remark spoken in the heated atmosphere of national debate, such as Bob Dole's "Democrat wars," or momentary whimsy, such as Ronald Reagan's "We'll begin bombing in...." Rather, his words were calculated, premeditated, pre-engineered to achieve maximum vilification and engender maximum partisan hatred. They were as unworthy of a president as unworthiness gets -- beyond the pale indeed, but perhaps just as egregious, absent above the fold.

By the 20th century, the 19th-century low of "waving the Bloody Shirt" had become the agreed standard for condemnable political rhetoric. To be justly accused of it was more shameful than exercising it. Now, a sitting president has not only crossed that boundary of impropriety and established a new low, his excessiveness is treated by the press – the constitutionally intended watchdogs of civic virtue – as something less than leading noteworthiness.

Both embrace a casual tolerance of extremism and, to put it mildly, bode badly for the 21st century.

This may come across as mawkish and melodramatic, but what the hell: Frankly, my heart aches for my country's seemingly unstoppable unraveling.