I’m not one to disparage the DLC’s Marshall Wittmann all the time, but his post today on how Dems should approach the Bush/NSA/spying story is worth reading, not because it’s insightful, but because it offers a hint at how the right will approach the debate over the administration’s conduct.
Wittmann (aka, “The Moose”) seems willing to concede that the president’s conduct wasn’t entirely kosher. Wittman doesn’t believe any laws were broken, but he suggests the White House needs to explain why the administration bypassed the judicial branch, and politely recommended that the Bush gang should have urged Congress to change surveillance laws if the administration found them inadequate. Then Wittmann turns his attention on the Dems.
When it comes to the War Against Terror, there is no room for right wing or left wing libertarianism. Of course, we should guard our freedoms and be vigilant for excesses. But, our robust democracy is not endanger. If international phone calls by terrorist suspects were monitored, good and fine. What is in question is whether some of our elites continue to believe that we are actually at war with a devious foe. Memories of 9/11 are fading and many act as if the threat has gone away.
On the political front, in the past month, there has been a systematic effort at self-branding by the Democratic Party, and it is not good. From the defeatist Iraq talk to the obstruction on the Patriot Act, the donkey is effectively “rebranding’ and “framing” itself as weak on national security.
Those are a lot of conservative talking points in two paragraphs, too many to debunk quickly. I will note, however, that it’s not just Dems raising questions. For that matter, given Wittmann’s perspective, it doesn’t seem that Dems are rebranding themselves so much he’s labeling the party as “weak” himself. Why? In part because Dems think the president should follow the law.
I’d personally prefer to wait a bit longer before drawing up articles of impeachment, but I’m having a hard time understanding why Dems should essentially give Bush a pass on this scandal. The evidence of wrongdoing, at this point, appears to be awfully strong. Wittmann seems to believe — I’m paraphrasing here — that Republicans will accuse Dems of being soft on terror if Dems emphasize civil liberties, including pesky warrants for searches on Americans on American soil. That’s probably true, but as Dems have to realize, the right will make this accusation anyway, whether Dems support constitutional principles or not.
As Tapped’s Greg Sargent put it, “[I]f Dems can’t hammer Bush when he may have placed himself above the law and when their criticism has bipartisan cover, when on earth can they criticize him?”
Nevertheless, Wittmann’s argument raises the specter of how the right would prefer to see this debate play out in the coming weeks. The administration will say, “We need to eavesdrop on Americans in order to protect the country.” Dems will say, “Go right ahead, just follow the law and allow for some checks and balances.”
The problem, of course, is what happens if Americans see the debate the way Wittmann does. If this boils down to “Bush wants to spy on bad guys and Dems aren’t happy about it,” the debate becomes politically problematic for our side of the aisle. If it boils down to, “Bush thinks he’s above the law and wants to ignore laws he finds inconvenient,” it’s challenge for Karl Rove.
For reasons I don’t understand, Wittmann seems anxious to push the debate towards the prior. Like Greg Sargent, I think Wittmann has things backwards.
At this critical moment for Dems, it’s key that the GOP’s main argument right now — specifically, that all Dem criticism is indistinguishable from “retreat and defeat” treachery — be seen by voters as nothing but partisan desperation on the part of a party that’s failing spectacularly. This is exactly the moment when those Dems with “hawk” credentials should be using them to delegitimize the GOP’s attacks on some in their party — even if they disagree with them.
Oddly enough, they’re doing the opposite. When they use exactly the same language as the GOP to criticize fellow Dems, all they’re doing is giving this desperate tactic bipartisan legitimacy. Worse, they’re actually fortifying the criticism-equals-weakness-and-treachery rhetorical framework the GOP continues to exploit so successfully.
Something to keep in mind as the debate continues to unfold.