Site Presented By
Monday, Nov 9, 2009
For Democratic activists, such remarks, gloomy as they are, are a kind of balm, assuring them they're not alone in seeing that the emperor is naked. The bolder the attacks on the president are, the more they resonate. "For some true believers, the words 'George Bush' conjure up a kind of hate which is a type of rhetorical cement," says Gregory Payne, a professor at Emerson College and co-director of the Center for Ethics in Political and Health Communication. With Bush, he says, "there is a cockiness, a swagger, a very dogmatic, righteous perspective, that what he's doing is absolute and there shouldn't be any question about it. He speaks as if he is an evangelical who has seen the light. For a lot of Democrats, he can be the prince of darkness."
Yet no matter how self-evident the horror of the Bush administration seems to the president's opponents, "The sky is falling" isn't an effective campaign slogan. Even if the sky is, in fact, on the way down.
"I'm writing a book on George Bush. It's unbelievable how fucking extremist these people are. It's really scary," said Eric Alterman, who was signing copies of his book "What Liberal Media?" after a panel on "Reversing the Right's Hold on the Media." "I just got my doctorate in American history, and I can't remember a worse president. I feel a sense of genuine alarm, but I don't know how you convey that without sounding shrill."
It's especially difficult when the media has abandoned any oppositional role. "What's frightening is the lassitude of the public and the complicity of the mass media," says Benjamin Barber, a Maryland University professor of civil society and the author of "Jihad Vs. McWorld" and the forthcoming "Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy in an Age of Interdependence." "The media has become spokespersons for the establishment. Selling people on the idea that we live in a complex and nuanced world, especially with a media controlled by the right, is much harder than selling people on 'USA! USA!'"
At the Take Back America conference, many longed for a lefty version of the right-wing attack machine to eviscerate Bush. Moyers, like many others in attendance, paid his respects to the right-wing media. "As a citizen I don't like the consequences of this crusade, but you have to respect the conservatives for their successful strategy in gaining control of the national agenda," he said. "Their stated and open aim is to change how America is governed -- to strip from government all its functions except those that reward their rich and privileged benefactors. They are quite candid about it, even acknowledging their mean spirit in accomplishing it."
Later, Jeff Faux of the Economic Policy Institute, said, "When I'm driving around the country and I hear these talk shows with the right-wing drunks calling in, I say to myself, 'Where are our drunks?'"
Yet Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., says the last thing Democrats need to do is stoop to Rush Limbaugh's level. "The purpose of politics is not to give people emotional satisfaction," he says. "If we were to do to Bush what [Republicans] did to Clinton, Bush would win the election and the Republicans would pick up seats," just as the Democrats did in the post-impeachment election. Says Begala about right-wing rage, "I don't think it does any good. Rush, Ann [Coulter], they make a lot of money, but 53 percent voted for Gore or Nader in the last election."
Of course, there's a difference between emulating right-wing infrastructure and emulating right-wing tactics. Creating a lefty version of the Heritage Foundation, as Podesta aims to do, is not the same as unleashing the kind of destructive scandal machine that characterized the Clinton years. "The fact is that there was an awful lot of what you'd consider dirty politics that went on in the '90s, but there are also a lot of things that conservatives do that are just effective and superior communications," says David Brock, the repentant former right-wing attack journalist who played a major role in fomenting anti-Clinton conspiracy theories.
When the left talks about needing its own version of the conservative infrastructure, he says, "it doesn't mean an imitation of the sleazier aspects of what the right did. It does mean delivering your message more clearly, defending it, and building some organizations independent of the party to do that. It would be a megaphone for the truth. No one is saying we need lies and propaganda."
But plenty of people are saying Democrats need a much more aggressive, confrontational political rhetoric. At Take Back America, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said, "Everywhere I go, everywhere every Democrat goes, we hear, Where are the Democrats?" Much of Howard Dean's support comes from people exhilarated by his fearlessness in challenging Bush. At the conference, he roared, "Mr. President, where are the weapons you told us about?" a question many in attendance want their party to pursue with the same vigor as right-wingers chasing rumors concerning Bill Clinton's sex life.
