|
We are, famously, an angry nation, litigious, trigger-happy
and self-righteous about our own beliefs. Even at
the movies, we desire to see our own tendencies parroted
back to us. That justifies all our rage, of course.
Now it’s true that Shrek has to learn to control
his temper to keep Fiona, and Michael Moore played
it much less irate than usual in “Fahrenheit
9/11,” handing out recruitment forms to congressman
with the best of humor, and it’s Doc Ock—not
Peter Parker—who is driven (and driven mad)
by his fits of temper. And see how far that got him:
Parker got the glory AND the girl.
We Americans also have the reputation of loving violence.
And while it’s true that in big blockbusters,
shoot-em-ups do solve most problems, in general, movies
tend to reward only certain types of anger, and even
then, they show that control is more important to
attaining goals. Angelina Jolie can spray bullets
all around her and come out on top; most other actors
and characters can’t get away with it. They
have to find other ways to vent their anger, be they
ogre or political progressive.
It is boringly obvious to state that George W. Bush
provokes anger in a good portion of the American public.
His policies, his smugness, his sense of entitlement
all come together in a potent mix of awfulness to
elicit true revulsion.
(Incidentally, it is my extreme dislike for Bush
that finally made me realize how so many Republicans
and conservatives could hate Clinton with the passion
that they did. It never made sense to me that a president
should elicit that level of dislike. I could not wrap
my mind around the idea that anyone would invest so
much attention and emotion in an elected official.
Disagree with his priorities, sure. Think he’s
a slimeball, even. But hate? Well, thanks to W., I
now understand it all too well.)
So we hate him. But what are willing to do about
it? Bake sales for democracy? Great. Protests at the
Republican National Convention? Also good. But what
about playing hardball?
During the Democratic National Convention, Republicans
put out two anti-Kerry videos to combat his “I’m
John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty”
moment. And let’s not forget about the oxymoronically
named “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”
media blitz. It would be nice to say that these things
had no effect, that voters saw through the lies and
smear tactics. But they didn’t, and Kerry’s
numbers fell.
Democrats must understand that there is no such thing
as being above the fray in politics. We’d all
like the political system to be more civil, not to
depend upon character-assassination and negative advertising.
But that ‘s not the way of the world, at least
not right now.
The Republicans have understood the political landscape
very well over the last couple of decades. That’s
because they created it: the word “liberal,”
which undergirds our entire system (we’re all
liberals, even W. and Co., since we take things like
a democratic system that affords certain rights for
granted, even as we argue about the extent of those
rights) has been dragged through the mud, Democratic
nominees are painted as wimps or liars or “slick.”
As if there’s anything other than a slick politician.
All this in the service of a greater goal: winning.
But Democrats want to have it both ways. They want
to suggest the wrongs of the other guy, without coming
out and taking a bite out of his well-padded derriere.
This will not do. There is as little place in campaigning
for nuance (as Kerry is finding out) as this for civility.
It is not enough to have Michael Moore and Al Franken
and Jon Stewart stumping for the Party. It’s
not enough to have them questioning Bush and the Republicans.
For them to be as effective as Rush Limbaugh and Bill
O’Reilly, we have to change the terms of political
arguments.
We have to decide what we want. If it’s victory,
if it’s a chance to shape this country’s
future, we have to be as mean, as low, as determined,
as they are. Herewith, some hopes for the next week
and the months following:
1-the word “conservative” is not off-limits.
Let’s drag that through the mud as much as they’ve
already dirtied “liberal.” How about an
ad in which children sit in a dilapidated school with
no books, a voice over claiming “conservative
left all these children behind?” Or one with
a couple sitting at a dining room table trying to
struggle with their credit card debts while a voice
over claims that “conservatives say Americans
should be more responsible about the debt they accrue,
but they don’t think that applies to them. Conservatives
have put this country into record debt. It’s
time to hold them to account.”
2-John Kerry should not have to defend his record
against those who resent his post-Vietnam activities.
But now that he does, why are we not seeing ads that
lay out the AWOL charges against Bush? Sure, everyone
knows that story by now, but so what? Do unto him
as he allowed others to do unto Kerry. Put his reputation
where it deserves to be: underfoot in the dirt.
3-Take things out of context. Dick Cheney gave a
speech in which he derided Kerry for promising to
fight a “more sensitive war.” So what
if Kerry was using Bush’s terms? Cheney turned
it against Kerry by removing it from its context,
giving it his own special Satanic, close-mouthed spin.
There is absolutely nothing—except scruples—keeping
democrats from doing the same.
You get the drift: it’s scruples or success
at this point. Karl Rove and the Republican Party
are not going to let the Democrats win this election.
There is too much at stake for them. The only hope
for kicking these bums out is to beat them at their
own game.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in civility.
I think the world would be a better place were we
all to play nice. I also believe that the only way
to get politicians to play nice is to even the playing
field. Once everyone gets as low as they can possibly
go, things may well turn back up. But in the meantime,
we should never forget that the biggest dog wins the
fight. How sharp are our teeth? How angry are we?
| 
