The Pros and Cons of Ratf*cking
Two of my favorite blogs, Corrente and Hullabaloo, engaged in an interesting if depressing dialogue on the current state of the Presidential campaign and what Democrats should do about it. Lambert at Corrente characterizes the current tactics of Bush/Cheney 04 as “ratfucking,” a charming term of Nixonian vintage, and recommends fighting fire with fire:
So I think voters have the right to look to Kerry to be strong on this, play tough, and call Republican tactics for what they are. (That's how to deal with bullies, yes?) Because if Kerry botches this, it's another self-inflicted wound. "More in sorrow than in anger" will be fine (I think Edwards would be just fine at that), a second Checkers speech would be fine, whatever: We can't let this go.
Kerry is a war hero, and if Kerry can't defend the facts of his own biography against the Republicans, why should voters trust him to defend the country against external enemies? Josh Marshall is right: (here) Don't whine; just win.
But we have to win this one, and we won't win it by changing the subject. We didn't start this one, but we will have to finish it. I'd love to talk about public policy and the issues—all the things that Bush won't talk about because he can't run on them—but, alas, the first real encounter battle of the campaign isn't being fought on that ground.
If Kerry wins, and lives, and is allowed to take office, the smears will continue, to make Democratic policies impossible to implement. (Oh, you thought the Republicans would meekly accept the election results? Silly.) The Republicans will try to do to Kerry exactly what they did to Clinton, using their by now very well-worn playbook. It's time to say "It stops here."
Digby, the hullaballist, concurs in Lambert’s general assessment of the situation but disagrees that Democrats are complicit in their predicament:
It's not because of self-inflicted wounds --- it's because we are dealing with a particular brand of thuggish assassin that is difficult to reconcile with democracy.
Clinton was being hounded about all kinds of trumped up garbage long before Monica came into the picture. He would have been tarred as the corrupt whitewater, Chinese espionage, Lincoln bedroom hippie whether he gave himself that "self-inflicted" blowjob or not. And he fought back like a champ but it doesn't matter when you are dealing with people who have no use for truth or reality. You don't have to actually do anything with these people. They'll just make shit up. Smear tactics, which are by definition untrue, are the most lethal tool in the character assassins' arsenal and the Republicans are worse than the Borgias when it comes to using them. [emphasis added]
He then goes on to speculate about a subject that has many of us concerned: to wit, what motivates these bastards? It’s not as simple as straight-up greed, sincere belief that they have the right answers, or a desire to do the right thing for the country. Rational goals, even ones tied to self-interest, tend toward rational debate. If you’re really fighting for something worth winning, it’s important to win in a fair fight so everyone knows you’ve won on the merits. It’s what legitimates your victory and gives you a mandate. Only the pursuit of pure power for its own sake justifies the kind of routine disregard for all institutional and ethical boundaries on debate and process that we’ve seen from Republicans since 1994.
This isn’t to say that the right wing doesn’t have an agenda. Quite the opposite – its objectives are clear (though not necessarily in this order, depending on who you ask):
- Run the US government broke so it won’t bother corporations from doing business as they see fit.
- Show foreigners who’s boss.
- Establish the United States as an explicitly Christian country, run according to the lights of the most fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.
- Silence anyone with political views to the left of Rudy Giuliani.
There are plenty of Americans who would agree to all of these points, exactly as formulated. Plenty, but not a majority. And in a democracy, you need to get near enough to a majority to put your guy in office, so running on the real agenda therefore isn’t an option for those who sincerely believe these four points constitute a good basis for running the country. Thus begins the ratfucking.
Dave Neiwert at Orcinus, writing on a different but related subject, characterizes the common tactics thusly:
McCarthyite railing against "communist" influences. Patriot-oriented conspiracy theories about a "New World Order" global government (with the Swift Boats Veterans material -- replete with its theories about Kerry's "long-term" plans to become president -- playing a starring role). Bizarre and divisive claims about the "homosexual agenda" and gun-control plots and "Green Nazis." Most of all, incessant attacks, both on Kerry's character along with otherworldly distortions of his actual political agenda, combined with larger attacks on "liberalism" as a disease in need of eradication.
All of this creates a poisonous environment where the visceral intensity of personal attacks and slanders makes it sound pedantic to discuss anything so tedious as the actual issues. Both observers and participants in the debate disengage from reasoned advocacy and go into a kind of beserker battle trance. Restraint goes out the window. It’s all about swinging the heaviest axe and splitting the skull of the opponent.
Digby argues, chillingly, that, on the Right, the pure lust for battle has supplanted even the lust for victory:
If Bush has proven anything, it's that we are in an era in which actual ideology and policy, even power --- even winning --- isn't the point to the Republicans. They are about the fight. It's the game, the argument, the battle. They get off on the political combat. For them, the action is the juice, win or lose. (And one of the reasons they've been so successful at co-opting the media is because the media thrives on the same juice.)
…I don't dispute that appeals to reason have been exhausted. And I don't say that Kerry shouldn't fight by any means necessary in this election. It's vitally important that we get institutional power out of their hands. (Indeed, many may secretly want us to. The fight is not as satisfying when you hold all the power and we have become quite adept at cleaning up their messes.)
But, blaming ourselves for the state of play or deluding ourselves into thinking it's just a matter of "being tough" is to misunderstand what we are facing. It's a primitive force with post-modern tools in its hands and we'd better start looking at this thing for what it is instead of seeing ourselves as simply inept. Winning won't change anything. As long as the fight continues, they are getting exactly what they want.
This is tough medicine for many of us who are fighting out of a desire to restore responsible governance to the country we love. We don’t want to ratfuck anyone – we want our ideas vindicated, and our candidates allowed to govern when they win. We’ve come reluctantly to the conclusion that winning ugly is better than losing, especially since losing to this bunch again puts us at existential risk. So it means picking up the axe, getting our hands dirty, and hoping in the face of the odds that, in the end, the spirit of decency is stronger than the negative pull of slander and violence.
8:35:41 AM 
|
|
