Spare us the "outrage"

First a follow-up on my last post. There are now officially 37 candidates for president running in the NH presidential primary, including no fewer than 13 Republican challengers to President George W. Bush. Still the media will call the GOP race "uncontested". John Donald Rigazio (a perennial candidate from NH) is the first of the "dark horse" candidates for whom I've seen an ad (in a local newspaper). You can check out the complete list of candidates at the Secretary of State's web site: http://www.state.nh.us/sos/presprim%202004/list%20with%20photos.htm

I haven't seen a broadcast of the television ad recently launched by the Republican National Committee, but I've sure heard a lot about it from the Democrats. Methinks they protest WAY too much.

I did look on-line to view the ad, and have to wonder what Democrats will do when the campaign seriously heats up. If this ad draws cries of "outrageous" and "repulsive" from the likes of Tom Daschle, what will the Democrats do when the gloves come off? Spare some outrage for later, Senator.

The ad, if you've not seen it, opens with the caption: "Strong and Principled Leadership." It shows excerpts of President George W. Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address. After the first excerpt, a caption announces "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists" (the word "terrorists" turns red before the caption fades). After another excerpt, a second caption says "Some call for us to retreat and put our national security in the hands of others" ("retreat" and "others" featured in red). After a third excerpt, the final caption says: "Call Congress now, tell them to support the President's policy of preemptive self-defense" ("self-defense" in red). The ad ends with a notification that the RNC produced the ad.

This brought the howls of outrage from the Senate minority leader, and a range of objections and criticism from various other Democrats, including several of the presidential candidates. Senator Kennedy even called it an attempt to "stifle dissent." The reaction to the ad, which does not mention Democrats directly, nor the presidential race, nor any of the candidates, is itself quite revealing. The GOP has apparently hit a sensitive nerve, and gone early to an issue on which the Democrats obviously feel quite vulnerable. Only by implication does the ad suggest that Democrats are the ones "attacking the president for attacking the terrorists." What must bother the Democratic candidates is the fact that they realize many voters are likely to complete that subtle bit of reasoning, and make the implicit connection easily.

And why wouldn't they? It is the case that some Democrats, including some candidates for president, have opposed the Bush administration counter-terrorism policy in Iraq and elsewhere. Did Democrats expect the GOP would neglect to point out those policy differences? Did they expect the GOP would not take advantage of an issue that works to their advantage?

The appeal to fear and security is an elementary and emotionally effective technique of political persuasion. Democrats use it all the time when aiming to convince elderly voters that they will be left without food or medicine or homes because of Republican budget cuts or "threats" to Social Security. The "outrage" then, is hypocritical and strikes me as little more than theatrical whining which draws attention to the very ad the Democrats claimed they wanted pulled from the air.

What the Democrats should do is to go to the very same State of the Union Address, and even to the very same paragraphs from which the ad excerpts are drawn. Only a few sentences removed from the excerpts employed by the GOP are statements like this one: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction." It was in the State of the Union that the President told the American people: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production," a claim that most acknowledge now was groundless, and based on false information.

Here is the best answer for the Democrats. But, will they use it? Will they trust the American voter to assess the issue fairly? Or will they fear a voter backlash if they too directly challenge the President's policy on Iraq? Haven't we seen in their reaction a disinclination to make the war a full-fledged issue in this campaign? Would such a move place too many of the candidates in the uncomfortable position of having to explain their stance in favor of the war? Whatever the Democratic strategy, we could do with a little more policy debate, and a little less outrage.