"I thought using the Ayatollah's money to support the Nicaraguan resistance was a neat idea"
- Oliver North, 1988
I imagine every one of us has a specific moment related to politics that solidified our beliefs. For me, at age 23 it was the moment I first heard the above words - spoken by Oliver North in that manipulatively folksy manner of his. Up until that exact moment I had labored under the notion that my fellow Americans valued honesty above all else. Certainly they all said they did. But sitting there, watching the Iran Contra hearings, I knew that the whole country now knew that we'd been lied to. But what is worse, I knew instinctively that nobody really cared.
(More below)
There has been a debate around here lately about the Schiavo affair. It has been forcefully argued that engaging this issue on moral terms amounts to playing into the GOP's hand, that the "rule of law" is the only issue that matters politically or otherwise. I disagree.
First...to be clear, I DO agree with the argument that preserving the rule of law is THE primary imperative here. At its most cynical level this whole mess is about removing the judiciary as an obstacle to faith based legislation. This is dangerous business and must be taken seriously. But just because it is the most important issue does not make it the only issue.
In sophiebrown's diary http://sophiebrown.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/26/14593/1820 it is correctly pointed out that the radical right has not argued its case in moral terms, they have simply challenged the science used to decide it. This is partially true. In the case as it exists in the courts of Florida and Washington, she is absolutely correct. In the court of public opinion as played out on talk radio, Fox, and the cable news shows, there can be no doubt that this case is being argued largely on moral grounds. Even to the extent that their arguments focus on second-guessing doctors, judges, and/or Michael Schiavo's motivations, the bottom line for them IS a moral issue. If she is not in a persistent vegetative state they argue, then a great injustice is being done.
In a just and sane world, this kind of posturing would never work - and the polls bear out that, this time it is not working. While it restores a small measure of faith in Americans to see the country reject the radical right on this matter, I also wonder if it doesn't amount to a temporary rebuke. Several years from now, when voting decisions must be made, does the memory of this work for us or against us? Will the actions of the GOP be seen as harshly as they are now, or will they be seen as yet another example of proof that the republicans are the party that values "life?"
The big question for us a party is, can we afford to continue sidestepping the "morality" debate and establish ourselves as the party of "law". I think to do this would be a disaster.
Returning back to Ollie North again, I've always wondered why the public refused to repudiate both him and the administration that spawned him. He was found guilty in the court of law, but the court of public opinion has been kinder to North than he deserved. Why is that? In my mind it is partially because Ronald Reagan was beloved, but more so because the entire Contra connection, once discovered, was sold to the on moral terms. These were "Freedom Fighters" we were arming after all.
Looking over our recent political history, it is all too easy to find further evidence that the people of this country are more than willing to accept lies and illegal behavior from our leaders - if couched in moral terms. One needs look no further than Bush's claims of WMD and a link between Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Weren't we liberals all mystified at the public's willingness to look the other way? Why did they? Most likely because 3,000 people died in the twin towers and many Americans were morally fine with a broad war against Islamic fundamentalism.
So the question becomes - if we bank on the idea that we can expose their lack of respect for the law, will the public buy? Can we shake the perception that we are the party of dissent and remake ourselves as the party of law? Will the sheriff's hat look right on our heads, or will we just come off looking like Mike Dukakis riding around on that tank?
I think we need to be honest with ourselves. The battle for the hearts and minds of this country will not be won by being righteously correct. As much as we daydream about a moment in which we lift the veil of deceit from the GOP and expose them to the country for who they really are, it simply will never happen. The war for America can only be won when the average American feels that we share enough of their values. And sadly, valuing truth and the rule of law appears to be low on the totem pole for them. I think it is no coincidence that the last two democrats to be elected president were men who were comfortable engaging issues on moral terms. We cannot cede the moral debate to the extremists. To do so will be to assure, ironically, that moral victories are the only ones we will be able to claim.