So, I guess my secret's out: I don't like being mean to illegal immigrants. I do, however, like being mean to the leadership of the Republican Party, which is why one of MoveOn's recent e-mails really kind of chafes my hindquarters.
One of the nice things about being on MoveOn's mailing list is that it serves as a little pulse-of-liberal-activism memo delivered right to my inbox. Judging from this e-mail, the pulse is...er, slowing rapidly. The issue: Pat Robertson's recent assertion that the federal judiciary, intransigent in its refusal to reverse the tyrannical and undemocratic measures imposed on our nation by a man elected to the presidency four times, has become a greater threat to America than "a few bearded terrorists." Yikes! This certainly calls for some hard-core condemning! So, what's my beef with MoveOn? It has primarily to do with this exhortation to members:
Last Sunday, Pat Robertson went on national television to say liberal judges posed a greater threat to America than the Civil War, the Nazis or "a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." Bill Frist and Tom DeLay must publicly condemn these outrageous comments and stop intimidating judges.
The audio track of the accompanying TV spot, which is otherwise very well-produced, takes the same tack: "Will Bill Frist and Tom Delay continue to pander to the radical Fringe?"
My guess: Yes! They will!
I will never, for the life of me, understand why anyone thinks this tired old "Will X repudiate their own beliefs?" setup is politically effective. The whole thing about these kinds of events is that you can use them to define the other guy. You don't want them to repudiate their remarks, and you don't want to allow for any daylight between their remarks and who they really are. You want to nail their own remarks to their foreheads until their names cannot be spoken out loud without being accompanied by laughter, and you do not get this done by asking them if they will, if-you-please, take back their ever-so-discourteous remarks. They won't, and when they don't, the story becomes how they steadfastly refused to waver from their original stance, which takes focus away from the fact that their original stance was batshit insane.
I bring this up only because I've seen liberal activist groups doing it a lot lately. Will Tom DeLay do the right thing and resign? Will Bill Frist see the light and back off the nuclear option? Will President Bush make a U-turn away from privatization? No! Of course they won't! And, for the $64,000 prize, what's the reason they won't? If you answered, "They're beholden to corrupt special interests and not to real Americans," congrats; you get to join Ken Jennings in the winner's circle.
The fact that Republican leaders won't back away from their insane statements is what makes them so unfit to lead, and eventually, it's what's going to bring the entire Congress swinging back to the Democratic Party. But first, we have to realize that the suggestion that they could repudiate their remarks implies that they are somehow separate from the things they say. For those keeping track, this is the opposite of effective framing. So please, MoveOn: Start seeing these things as opportunities to frame our opposition, and stop politely asking our opposition to frame themselves for us.
Update: For the record, I mean something more like this:
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Party, said yesterdaythat the US House majority leader, Tom DeLay, ''ought to go back toHouston where he can serve his jail sentence," referring to allegationsof unethical conduct against the Republican leader.
Read the whole article. Specifically, notice how the rest of it focuses on how sleazy Tom DeLay actually is. It's - gasp! - not a meaningless process story! Repudiate that, Tom. YEEEARGH!
