Anyone with even a passing familiarity with this year’s presidential campaign is no doubt familiar with the smears directed at Barack Obama. His detractors have gone after him — and in multiple instances, simply made up trash — on any number of subjects, including his faith, his family, and his patriotism. What’s worse, there’s evidence that these smears have taken root in the minds of some voters, and the attacks may very well undermine Obama’s chances on Election Day.
But The New Republic’s James Kirchick, in a rather odd piece, insists we have it backwards. Republicans, Kirchick argues, haven’t been smearing Obama, but rather, it’s Democrats who’ve been smearing John McCain.
Thus far, no one with any serious affiliation to John McCain’s campaign has resorted to the alleged “scare” tactics in which Republicans — and, apparently, only Republicans — have been perfecting since Richard Nixon was first elected. On the contrary, if the past few months have showed us anything, it’s that the Obama campaign is the one dealing in crude smears.
From there, Kirchick points to a variety of instances in which “high-ranking Obama supporters” — Sen. John Rockefeller, Wesley Clark, Rand Beers, and Sen. Tom Harkin — have questioned whether McCain’s military experience necessarily qualifies McCain for the presidency. Kirchick believes they’re guilty of making “outlandish remarks” and “morally offensive … smears.”
Kirchick then reinterprets the Democrats’ remarks, arguing that the underlying allegation is that “McCain is an unhinged, mentally unstable warmonger who would deploy soldiers capriciously because he hasn’t truly experienced the horrors of ground battle.” He then suggests, without proof, that these “smears” may have been “coordinated by the Obama campaign.”
It’s hard to even know where to start.
First, the notion that the McCain campaign hasn’t resorted to “scare” tactics seems surprisingly naive. There’s a familiar pattern that Kirchick has no doubt seen — McCain remains above the fray, steering clear of unsavory attacks, while watching with glee as right-wing attack dogs do the campaign’s dirty work. This isn’t new; Republicans have been operating this way for years.
Second, and more importantly, Kirchick is redefining “smear” in a way that doesn’t make any sense. The quotes he featured from relatively high-profile Democrats are legitimate, but to characterize them as “attacks” is just foolish.
Kathy G. explained this well, and adds some useful context:
Pointing out — as Wes Clark and others have argued — that McCain’s military service and experience as a prisoner of war does not necessarily make him better qualified to be commander-in-chief is not anything close to a smear. Nor is it in any way disrespectful of the great sacrifices McCain made for his country. All Clark was saying was that McCain’s military experience was not the kind of executive experience that is directly relevant to the presidency. […]
And … does Kirchick sincerely believe that saying, on the one hand, that John McCain’s military service does not necessarily make him qualified to be commander in chief, is equivalent, on the other hand, to insinuations that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim/undercover terrorist/scary black nationalist/former drug dealer/unpatriotic/not really American/part of the corrupt Chicago political machine/etc. etc. etc.?
We should probably at least try to set some basic parameters for what constitutes a “smear.” When the far-right Swiftboat liars questioned John Kerry’s military service, it was a smear. When Karl Rove’s buddies in South Carolina accused John McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child, it was a smear. When Obama’s critics make up nonsense about Obama’s religion and patriotism, it’s a smear. In each instance, the accusations were malicious and demonstrably false.
But questioning the relevance of McCain’s military service doesn’t meet the standard. McCain wants voters to believe his record during the war in Vietnam makes him qualified to lead the nation now, and Dems are arguing that this simply isn’t the case. No one’s lying about his service, no one is making up attacks with no foundation in reality.
It’s unhelpful, to put it mildly, for Kirchick to argue otherwise.