(Adapted from a post at Needlenose.)
I guess we should have known it was too good to last. In recent weeks, prominent Democrats have begun to find their public voice on national security issues -- finally summoning up the courage to challenge Dubya on the issues of Iraq and terrorism. But since Friday, they haven't been quite so feisty, as the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday morning:
A day after a Detroit judge said the president "blatantly disregarded" the Constitution when he authorized the domestic surveillance program, top Republicans issued a stream of memos discussing her ruling and released a new Web ad accusing Democrats of being against terrorist surveillance.
. . . Democratic leaders, by contrast, after issuing a few terse comments on Thursday, have fallen largely silent.
To put it simply, this won't do. Fortunately, your friendly neighborhood Swopa is here to help.
If Democrats match Republicans' intensity on every other issue but fall silent on this one, rest assured that the GOP will use all their wiles (and cash on hand) to leverage
"terrorist surveillance" and
"the tools necessary to protect this country" against every other topic.
I outlined the basic principle for fighting back six months ago:
. . . every time the GOP tries to play the "We're the strong daddy" card, we need to hit them back with the "No, you're the crazy, irresponsible daddy" card. Every time. And hard. That's what this framing business is all about, folks.
Here's what I mean, in more specific terms -- at this point, we all know that what makes progressives
right to oppose power grabs like the NSA spying program is that we don't need to surrender our Constitution in order to protect ourselves against terrorism. But the problem in making that our only argument is that
it doesn't undercut the Bushites' framing of the issue:
[A] "principled" objection to Shrub's trampling of individual privacy actually reinforces the consciously crafted image of a Strong Daddy who will stop at nothing (even the Constitution!) when it comes to defending the national family.
Just because an argument is right, in other words, doesn't mean it will persuade everyone we want and need to persuade. To seize the undecided middle ground of the debate, we need to knock the legs out from under the
key Republican assertions -- that Dubya, who "understands the threat," needs every possible tool to protect America, and that bothering with legal niceties risks another massive terrorist attack. That's the "strong daddy" card I mentioned.
To hit them back with the "crazy, irresponsible daddy" card, first I'd remind people of just who is proposing to torch the Bill of Rights for their safety -- a president who didn't understand the threats when we invaded Iraq, or when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. So when this president talks about the threats he sees and knowing what it takes to protect us, Americans should ask for a second opinion.
And that's really what Democrats are arguing for with regard to the NSA -- a second opinion. To eavesdrop on someone or get data about them, he should go to a judge, just as the law requires. And if he wants to change the law, he should go to the Congress. That's just common sense.
Second, when Republicans try to spook people into line with the threat of another September 11th, Democrats should caution against scare tactics from the same people who told us Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. When they pull out the "mushroom clouds" talk again, Americans need to ask for -- you guessed it -- a second opinion. Because they were wrong before, and nearly 3,000 Americans have paid the price for it in Iraq.
That "second opinion" theme sets up the Democratic message for the November elections: Americans have paid too high a price for relying on one party's bad judgment, and electing a Democratic Congress will ensure that there's a second opinion on how to defend America and its interests (and on other issues).
But regardless of the specific language used, the key is that Republicans know each time they talk about needing to yield the Great Decider, we're going to remind everyone of his deadly blunders with Iraq and Katrina. And each time they say we'll "get hit again" if people don't shut up and obey, we're going to remind everyone how they got stampeded into a war in Iraq, and the awful toll we've suffered as a result.
If Democrats do this consistently, they can make it so that Republicans are the ones who are nervous about discussing national security. And then we can have a clearer debate about the need for the president and agencies like the NSA to follow the law and the Constitution.