With the following words in late in 2001, John Ashcroft strongly criticized those he believed were exaggerating civil libertarian concerns about the Bush Administration’s efforts to protect us from terrorism:
“We need honest, reasoned debate; not fear mongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies, and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”
Never a favorite of the Left, John Ashcroft immediately became to de facto poster boy for the rabid anti-Bush Left. The paragraph was seized upon as one more piece of evidence that Ashcroft seeks to crush dissent and paint anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration as “unpatriotic.” Though the Bush Administration has been careful never to use these terms, we constantly hear and read the faux concern for stifling of honest dissent.
Indeed, the statement does suggest that we need “unity” and some people who disagree with the Administration must be aligning themselves with the interests of terrorists. To then extent that such suggestions are conveyed they are grossly unfair. The judicious use of a single word would have rendered the entire paragraph far less controversial. One need change, “Your tactics only aid terrorists…” to “Your tactics only unintentionally aid terrorists…” The use of the word “unintentionally” concedes that critics retain the same goals with perhaps different approaches.
Now suppose someone on the Left has used the same rhetorical logic and argued:
“We need honest, reasoned debate; not fear mongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving into yielding personal liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies, and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”
Would there have been calls on the Left to tone down the rhetoric and not depict opposition as mean spirited? The evidence suggests not. There have been far more egregious statements than Ashcroft’s by serious people on the Left with nary a yawn of concern and usually accompanied by smiles of support. The Left has been exquisitely and deliberately sensitive to even subtle indirect implications that they are less than patriotic, though they seem to have few qualms about making such direct charges themselves.
Senator Edward Kennedy rightly suggests that “In this serious time for America and many American families, no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents.” However, with little evidence he then asserts that “Republican leaders are avoiding key questions about the Administration’s policies by attacking the patriotism of those who question them.” Democratic hopeful General Wesley Clark whines, “How dare this administration make the charge that if you disagree with its policies, you are somewhat unpatriotic!”
Yet, it is the Left who has done the most lately to foster and nurture an us-against-them attitude. We can forgive the easy way that all candidates wrap themselves in values we all embrace. Although the web site for Presidential aspirant Howard Dean is called “Dean for America,” it would far too obsessive to believe that he is suggesting that those who do not agree with him are not for America. It is Nixon-level paranoia to suggest that naming the Liberal advocacy group “People for the American Way” suggests that others are not for the American Way. It is hard to even be upset with the Dean’s purile projection, “This president [Bush] is not interested in being a good president. He’s interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father.” Such statements by Dean are more self revelatory than credible.
What coarsens the public discourse is the reference by Dean to Bush as the “enemy” or the assertion that “John Ashcroft is not a patriot.” What serves to “poison the public square” are remarks by Clark such as “I don’t think it was a patriotic war. I think it was a mistake, a strategic mistake, and I think that the president of the United States wasn’t patriotic in going after Saddam Hussein. He simply misled America and cost us casualties and killed and injured America’s reputation around the world without valid reason for doing so. It’s not patriotic; it’s wrong.”
For the Democratic Party who beats its breasts about keeping religion and politics separate and sometimes ridicules Bush’s conspicuous faith, it is particularly disheartening to hear Clark suggest that as far as Christianity goes, “there’s only one party that lives that faith in America, and that’s our party, the Democratic party.” That’s a pretty amazing assertion from someone who admits voting for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. If the difference between parties is so morally stark, what took Clark so long to declare as a Democrat?
It is not clear how much such rhetoric Dean and Clark really believe. Certainly candidates like Senator Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, or John Edwards have not seen the need to resort to such tactics. Such flame-throwing rhetoric ignites the dry-tinder partisans who populate the halls and auditoriums of pre-primary America. However, people who wish to lead have an obligation to eschew such anger. As Lincoln enjoined in a far more contentious and dangerous time, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” Rather than rally around anger, we must summon forth “the better angels of our nature.”
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 18th, 2005 at 6:49 pm and is filed under Politics, Social Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Better Angels of Our Nature
With the following words in late in 2001, John Ashcroft strongly criticized those he believed were exaggerating civil libertarian concerns about the Bush Administration’s efforts to protect us from terrorism:
Never a favorite of the Left, John Ashcroft immediately became to de facto poster boy for the rabid anti-Bush Left. The paragraph was seized upon as one more piece of evidence that Ashcroft seeks to crush dissent and paint anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration as “unpatriotic.” Though the Bush Administration has been careful never to use these terms, we constantly hear and read the faux concern for stifling of honest dissent.
Indeed, the statement does suggest that we need “unity” and some people who disagree with the Administration must be aligning themselves with the interests of terrorists. To then extent that such suggestions are conveyed they are grossly unfair. The judicious use of a single word would have rendered the entire paragraph far less controversial. One need change, “Your tactics only aid terrorists…” to “Your tactics only unintentionally aid terrorists…” The use of the word “unintentionally” concedes that critics retain the same goals with perhaps different approaches.
Now suppose someone on the Left has used the same rhetorical logic and argued:
Would there have been calls on the Left to tone down the rhetoric and not depict opposition as mean spirited? The evidence suggests not. There have been far more egregious statements than Ashcroft’s by serious people on the Left with nary a yawn of concern and usually accompanied by smiles of support. The Left has been exquisitely and deliberately sensitive to even subtle indirect implications that they are less than patriotic, though they seem to have few qualms about making such direct charges themselves.
Senator Edward Kennedy rightly suggests that “In this serious time for America and many American families, no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents.” However, with little evidence he then asserts that “Republican leaders are avoiding key questions about the Administration’s policies by attacking the patriotism of those who question them.” Democratic hopeful General Wesley Clark whines, “How dare this administration make the charge that if you disagree with its policies, you are somewhat unpatriotic!”
Yet, it is the Left who has done the most lately to foster and nurture an us-against-them attitude. We can forgive the easy way that all candidates wrap themselves in values we all embrace. Although the web site for Presidential aspirant Howard Dean is called “Dean for America,” it would far too obsessive to believe that he is suggesting that those who do not agree with him are not for America. It is Nixon-level paranoia to suggest that naming the Liberal advocacy group “People for the American Way” suggests that others are not for the American Way. It is hard to even be upset with the Dean’s purile projection, “This president [Bush] is not interested in being a good president. He’s interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father.” Such statements by Dean are more self revelatory than credible.
What coarsens the public discourse is the reference by Dean to Bush as the “enemy” or the assertion that “John Ashcroft is not a patriot.” What serves to “poison the public square” are remarks by Clark such as “I don’t think it was a patriotic war. I think it was a mistake, a strategic mistake, and I think that the president of the United States wasn’t patriotic in going after Saddam Hussein. He simply misled America and cost us casualties and killed and injured America’s reputation around the world without valid reason for doing so. It’s not patriotic; it’s wrong.”
For the Democratic Party who beats its breasts about keeping religion and politics separate and sometimes ridicules Bush’s conspicuous faith, it is particularly disheartening to hear Clark suggest that as far as Christianity goes, “there’s only one party that lives that faith in America, and that’s our party, the Democratic party.” That’s a pretty amazing assertion from someone who admits voting for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. If the difference between parties is so morally stark, what took Clark so long to declare as a Democrat?
It is not clear how much such rhetoric Dean and Clark really believe. Certainly candidates like Senator Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, or John Edwards have not seen the need to resort to such tactics. Such flame-throwing rhetoric ignites the dry-tinder partisans who populate the halls and auditoriums of pre-primary America. However, people who wish to lead have an obligation to eschew such anger. As Lincoln enjoined in a far more contentious and dangerous time, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” Rather than rally around anger, we must summon forth “the better angels of our nature.”
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 18th, 2005 at 6:49 pm and is filed under Politics, Social Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.