Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) is mad as heck, and he's not going to take itanymore.
First he appeared on the Senate floor in September to protestaccusations made by President Bush that Senate Democrats are "notinterested in the security of the American people." The vehemence ofDaschle's speech -- in which he whipped off his glasses and proclaimed thepresident's words "outrageous" -- was so uncharacteristic of thenormally vanilla senator that many members of the press portrayed the statementas mere political posturing.
Then at a press briefing on Nov. 20, Daschle took on another politicaladversary, telling reporters, "What happens when Rush Limbaugh attacksthose of us in public life is that people aren't satisfied just to listen. Theywant to act because they get emotionally invested . . . and the threats tothose of us in public life go up dramatically, on our families and on us, in away that's very disconcerting." This time, Daschle's comments werevariously characterized by members of the press as an overreaction, sour grapesor mental imbalance.
In the interest of full disclosure, I used to work in Daschle's office.But the dismissive tone of this press coverage is troubling whether you're aDaschle loyalist or a conservative Republican. Why? Because the issue thesenator is raising relates directly to the nature of political debate in thiscountry.
Even those who follow politics closely seem to have concluded thatDaschle's outbursts came from out of the blue. WashingtonPost media critic Howard Kurtz scornfully asked in a column, "Has the senator listened to Rush lately? Sure, he aggressively pokes fun at Democrats and lionizes Republicans, but mainly about policy." Kurtz quoted as "evidence" of Limbaugh's innocence some completely unrelated and relatively innocuous remarks from the provocateur's radio show.
Kurtz and others who have accused Daschle of thin-skinned carping mightwant to spend time listening to some choice Limbaugh diatribes and thentake a field trip to the mailroom of Daschle's office in the Hart Senate OfficeBuilding.
During his July 20, 2001, radio show, Limbaugh spent a significantamount of airtime drawing comparisons between Daschle and Satan. He began byasking listeners, "How many different versions of Satan, the devil, haveyou seen in your life? . . . Is Tom Daschle simply another way to portray thedevil?" In the same segment, Limbaugh tagged Daschle with a moniker thathas become a fan favorite -- "El Diablo." Shortly after the showaired, mail addressed to "Tom 'The Devil' Daschle" began arriving atthe senator's fifth-floor office.
In November 2001, the conservative lobbying organization AmericanRenewal unveiled newspaper ads featuring photos of Daschle and Saddam Husseinplaced side by side. The two were dubbed "strange bedfellows" because"neither man wants America to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge." Envelopes addressed to "Tom 'Saddam' Daschle"soon appeared in the daily mail.
In February 2002, Daschle publicly questioned aspects of the Bushadministration's strategy in the war on terrorism. In response, a number ofRepublicans -- most notably Trent Lott and Dick Cheney -- accused Daschle ofaiding the enemy and of being irresponsibly unpatriotic. This time, lettersaddressed to "Tom 'Osama' Daschle" joined the steady stream of mailarriving in Daschle's office.
Politicians are used to hate mail. It is an unpleasant butunfortunately standard feature of elective office. But there are two different types of hate mail: obscene missives filled with name-calling, vile accusations and crude suggestions; and letters that make the FBI sit up and take notice. It is this second type of communication that has Daschle so angry.
For it is one matter to disagree with someone on political grounds and criticizetheir policy arguments; it is quite another to engage in vitriolic attacks thatcontribute not to political debate but to high levels of animosity and hatredthat, in the end, do little more than degrade the quality of our nationaldebate.
Limbaugh and others have the right to ridicule Daschle to their heart'scontent, but if they cared about American democracy they would rethink thecrude tone of their criticisms. Their words, after all, do not vanish into theether. They have an effect. The president, in particular, has an extraordinarybully pulpit from which to make either a negative or a positive impact. In theaftermath of September 11, for example, Bush's repeated statements calling fortolerance toward Muslims had a clear result. A November 2001 poll by the PewForum on Religion and Public Life revealed that nearly two-thirds of thepresident's core constituents -- conservative Republicans -- felt favorablytoward American Muslims, up 29 percentage points since before the attacks. IfBush chose to, he could help change "the tone in Washington" that heso bemoaned during his 2000 campaign.
For now, however, the cycle continues. Daschle recently questionedwhether the war on terrorism can be considered a success, given new evidencethat Osama bin Laden is still alive. Republican Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.)immediately issued a press release subtly titled, "Foley QuestionsDaschle's Patriotism." And on his radio show, Limbaugh has added anothernickname to his grab bag, calling Daschle "Hanoi Tom" and addressingthese remarks to him: "You, sir, are a disgrace to patriotism, you are adisgrace to this country, you are a disgrace to the Senate."
Mail addressed to "'Hanoi Tom' Daschle" will undoubtedlybegin arriving shortly. In the meantime, no one is advocating some kind ofwishy-washy civility or watered-down political debate. But even Rush Limbaughshould be able to do better than equating political opponents with Satan -- andeven his listeners should be able to do better than passing off name-calling aspolitical discourse.
Amy Sullivan is a graduate student in sociology at PrincetonUniversity.
