I realize I’m about three days late on this (the woes of weekday-only blogging), but I wanted to weigh in for a moment on Osama bin Laden’s latest video.
The spinning was instantaneous and, as it turns out, largely unnecessary. For those of us anxious to see a Kerry victory tomorrow, the tape was a reaffirmation. Here we saw a man who orchestrated the most devastating terrorist attack in U.S. history alive and well — healthy, smug, and mocking us. It was a gnawing reminder of one of Bush’s most outrageous failures. The video, in this context, was likely to benefit Kerry in the polls.
For Bush supporters, of course, the video was seen as a “little gift.” It changed the national conversation after a horrible week for Bush and reminded voters that bin Laden is still out there — which to the right means we should vote for the candidate who let him get away and isn’t concerned about catching him. The right assumed that Bush would therefore get a boost from the video’s release.
The public’s reaction to the video, of course, was just like the national reaction to almost everything — split right down the middle. The tracking polls showed almost no movement at all as a result of the OBL tape.
But the reactions, particularly from the right, were telling nevertheless.
“We want people to think ‘terrorism’ for the last four days,” said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. “And anything that raises the issue in people’s minds is good for us.”
A senior GOP strategist added, “anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush.”
Republicans, in other words, are effectively admitting that they’re selling fear. The more voters are terrified, the happier the Bush campaign is. As twisted as this approach to politics is, there are even more important consequences.
Matt Yglesias, for example, noted the most serious flaw in a White House that welcomes, and actually hopes for, the public worrying about their personal safety.
Are people who think this way likely to improve, or degrade the personal safety of the American people? It’s a question that, I think, answers itself…. Can a group of people who believe the continued existence of the threat is vital to their political viability be relied upon to eliminate — or even reduce — the threat?
This point couldn’t be more important. Yglesias effectively argued, correctly, that Bush has a disincentive to improving national security. If we feel more secure, the GOP suffers politically. If we’re petrified by fear, it “helps Bush.” After all, bin Laden’s videos are “little gifts” to the GOP.
It was also fascinating to see how the right tried to note how obvious it was the bin Laden was using the video to help Kerry. Generally, the right hasn’t been able to make up its mind about this.
For example, as my friend Phil reminded me, Dick Morris told Bill O’Reilly earlier last week that bin Laden was helping Kerry by not saying anything.
“No bin Laden tape, no threats coming out of it, and I think that Al Qaeda is voting with its silence for John Kerry.”
So, if we’re to follow the right’s logic, no video proves bin Laden wants Kerry, while one video also proves bin Laden wants Kerry. I suspect that if bin Laden had come right out and said, “I begging you; please vote for Bush,” the right would say it was still obvious that bin Laden was playing psychological games because he’s so anxious for Kerry to win. It’s more “heads I win, tails you lose” rhetoric.
Ultimately, the bin Laden tape will almost certainly not change the outcome of the campaign. Still, I find it hard to imagine how someone, anyone, can see a self-satisfied bin Laden taunting us and not feel frustrated that our so-called tough-on-terrorism president is no longer concerned about capturing him.