The fight over the term “Daschle Democrats,” coined by conservatives to attack Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has taken a new turn in the past few weeks. While commentators like Donald Lambro of the Washington Times continue to use the term derisively, a group including a number of prominent Democrats has launched a campaign to transform its connotation from negative to positive.
The phrase entered the media’s bloodstream last May, when Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP, became an independent and gave Democrats control of the Senate, elevating Daschle to majority leader. William Safire announced in his New York Times column on May 24 that Jeffords is “just another Daschle Democrat, comfortable with his ideological kin.” That same day, Larry Kudlow used the term in the National Review Online, suggesting that “while it may be true that the Daschle Democrats will take over the operations of the Senate, there is no pronounced move to the left.”
Republicans quickly picked up the strategy of attacking Daschle in order to tar all Democrats by association. In July, Dave Boyer of the Washington Times reported that “Republicans acknowledge privately that the effort is coordinated and serves two purposes: to highlight their priorities by focusing on one Democratic ‘bogeyman’ and to bruise the political career of a media-savvy opponent [Daschle] with few glaring weaknesses yet for 2004.” Last December, the strategy was made even more explicit in a memo from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who suggested that “[i]t’s time for someone, everyone, to start using the phrase ‘Daschle Democrats’ and the word ‘obstructionist’ in the same sentence … It’s time for Congressional Republicans to personalize the individual that is standing directly in the way of economic security, and even national security. Remember what the Democrats did to Gingrich? We need to do exactly the same thing to Daschle.”
Perhaps no pundit has done the most to keep the term “Daschle Democrats” in the national debate than Lambro. In column after column he has repeated the phrase, attaching it to other bits of pejorative jargon and attacks on various Democratic policies. Since Democrats took control of the Senate last May, he has used the term at least 11 times in 11 separate columns, each in a negative context. Three examples from the past few weeks are illustrative. On April 11, Lambro claimed that “Saddam Hussein’s latest move to cut off Iraq’s oil exports for a month … handed the White House a powerful national security argument against the anti-drilling Daschle Democrats.” On April 22, he suggested that “the Daschle Democrats are blocking the administration’s efforts to explore new sources of energy to make America less dependent on foreign oil.” And on Thursday he claimed that “a Senate majority [is] being redefined by the Daschle Democrats as 60 votes” (a reference to Democratic threats to filibuster any bill allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).
Democrats, aware that it’s difficult to re-spin an established catchphrase, have started a campaign of their own to define the term in a positive way. A group of Daschle supporters — including former Daschle aide and Clinton chief of staff John Podesta and several prominent South Dakota Democratic politicians — have launched a group called Daschle Democrats that has begun running radio and TV ads in the state. The group’s Web site tells us that “‘Daschle Democrat’ is a term we promote with pride,” claiming that like Tom Daschle himself, “a ‘Daschle Democrat: believes it is unacceptable that millions of American families are without health insurance. A Daschle Democrat believes every child has a fundamental right to attend a quality public school and live in a safe neighborhood. A Daschle Democrat believes in a fair deal for working families, not corporate favors or tax breaks for only the wealthiest.” The fact that the group has chosen to contest the term “Daschle Democrats” — a term invented by conservatives — shows how seriously both sides are taking the language of political media coverage. As one lobbyist told Paul Kane of Roll Call, “Initially, there was a sense that you didn’t have to take this seriously because it was, in our minds, so off the mark” but now it would be “political malpractice not to respond.”
Though the 2004 election is still over two years away, it’s clear that the semantic battles that will help define the campaigns have already started.
The proposal to allow oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which the Senate voted down on Thursday, brought out overheated rhetoric from public officials and pundits on both sides. Each did their best to frame the issue advantageously: Opponents charged it was big oil vs. the environment, and supporters suggested it was volatile OPEC goons vs. national security and freedom.
Both sides have treated the facts in this debate cavalierly. As journalists Seth Borenstein and James Kuhnhenn point out, environmentalists have often overstated their claims about the potential damage to caribou herds, while some supporters of drilling have exaggerated the amount of oil in the refuge. When the proposal finally came under consideration in the Senate this week (the House approved the proposal last August), the spin reached a new level as each side tried to tie its viewpoint to everything from the war on terrorism to the Bush administration’s energy task force.
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, took on opponents of drilling with a rare attempt at direct intimidation on the Senate floor. Attacking the idea that the Wildlife Refuge is wilderness, he claimed on Tuesday that “anyone who comes to the floor and says this is wilderness is a liar — a liar. Anyone who tries to pretend that somehow or another we are violating the law is a liar. If it was back in the old days, I would challenge them to a duel.”
Stevens continued: “This area, the ANWR Coastal Plain, is not wilderness” because “it is hell in the wintertime — 60 below.” As Stevens should know, however, temperature has nothing to do with the definition of wilderness. He’s twisting the meaning of the term — normally, “a place without people” — to crudely reframe the debate using nothing more than bluster.
Other proponents of the drilling plan tried to link their side of the fight to the war on terrorism by intentionally blurring the timeline so that the oil exploration looked as though it could have an immediate impact. Most experts (including an Exxon executive who testified before Congress) calculate that it would take six to 10 years to develop ANWR’s oil reserves. Yet Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., claimed on CNN’s “Crossfire” last Tuesday that “the idea that we would sit here and let countries in the Middle East decide if our economy is going to be stable, if we are going to be able to prosecute this war on terrorism, is outrageous.”
Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, picked up the theme on the Senate floor, suggesting on Wednesday that “the risk [to our national security] is very real. The risk may go beyond the risk associated with just a political view of this issue … I would like to think every member of this body values not only the president but his office to see what is in the best interest of our country, our nation and our national security.” Both Murkowski and Hutchison are clearly attempting to associate the current war on terrorism with oil drilling in the ANWR. But while national security may be a valid concern several years down the line, to make the claim that oil from the refuge will have an immediate impact is disingenuous.
Not to be outdone, opponents of drilling have indulged in cheap shots of their own. Paul Begala attacked drilling supporter Hutchison on “Crossfire” on Tuesday with the question, “It seems to me the only rationale for a party for drilling in Alaska but against fuel efficiency is that you are following what big oil wants, aren’t you?” Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., recycled the same theme on Wednesday: “[ANWR] is the centerpiece of their policy because the people who wrote the policy, the special interest groups that sat down and crafted the policy, have another agenda. It isn’t energy security; it isn’t energy independence. It is about profitability.”
None of this deals with whether drilling in the ANWR is actually sound policy — support for drilling does not by itself invalidate Republican arguments about national security or energy independence. The opponents’ argument is just a way of discrediting drilling by association. That tactic is used by drilling proponents, too. Stevens suggested Wednesday that “a real problem is the people who really take advantage of the nation when we are evenly divided, the minority of the population — 2 percent — which represents these radical environmentalists.”
With the proposal off the table for the moment — it may reappear as the energy bill moves to a House-Senate conference committee — the debate will perhaps simmer down enough to allow reasonable consideration of the issue. Then again, maybe we’ll simply see another round of distorted facts and challenges to face off at 20 paces.
As Democrats launch their first criticisms of the Bush administration’s war policies, several Republicans and conservative pundits have launched an all-out attack designed to frame virtually any criticism of the war on terrorism as illegitimate.
In a press conference Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., defended fellow Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., who criticized the Bush defense budget and conduct of the war on terrorism. Asked whether he thought the success of the war had been overstated, Daschle replied:
“I don’t think the success has been overstated. But the continued success I think is still somewhat in doubt. Whether we continue to succeed depends on whether we get the right answers to the questions Senator Byrd was posing yesterday. … I will say that at this point, given the information we’ve been provided, I don’t think it would do anybody any good to second-guess what has been done to date. I think it has been successful. I’ve said that on many, many occasions. But I think the jury’s still out about future success, as I’ve said.”
He also suggested Thursday that it was necessary for the United States to find Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders for the war on terrorism to be considered a success.
Daschle’s comments are noteworthy — Democratic criticism of the conduct of the war has been extremely mild to date. But the points he made are well within the bounds of legitimate debate.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., however, fired back almost immediately by attacking Daschle’s right to criticize the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war. “How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field,” Lott stated. “He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united.” Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called Daschle’s remarks “thoughtless and ill-timed.” Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Davis, R-Va., head of the Republican House Campaign Committee, claimed Daschle’s “divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country.”
Conservative pundits also rallied to the sounds of the battle. Pundit and former Gingrich press secretary Rich Galen claimed that Daschle, Byrd and Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., “have decided to declare war on President George W. Bush’s handling of the war against terrorists,” while Andrew Sullivan suggested that Daschle’s comments marked the start of a campaign “to undermine the war in order to gain some political traction against the president.”
Daschle’s relatively mild statement, questioning the future conduct of the war and the administration’s request for a large increase in defense spending, is the sort elected representatives have every right to make. Yet instead of even addressing Daschle’s comments, his critics question their very legitimacy, suggesting that any criticism of the direction of the war is out of bounds and divisive as long as the war is ongoing. Since the conflict is open-ended and likely to expand, this logic would shut down debate indefinitely.
The campaign against Daschle’s comments has already had a powerful impact. Daschle’s spokeswoman defensively clarified Daschle’s comments later in the day, insisting that, “In fact, the transcript [of Daschles remarks] … indicates no criticism of President Bush or his campaign against terrorism.” And in a sign of how even professional journalists can be taken in by the spin of the moment, Peter Jennings suggested in an ABC News.com e-mail that Daschle’s statement represents “the sudden disintegration of loyalty and bipartisanship vis-a-vis the war on terror.”
Davis’ and Lott’s suggestions that criticism of the conduct of the war undermines American resolve and aids the enemy are baseless attempts to bully their opposition into silence by suggesting that all such criticism is divisive. Sadly, given Daschle’s reaction and Jennings’ e-mail, it appears to be working already.
Hungry for more Spinsanity? Click here.
As the Enron scandal progresses, opportunistic politicians are trying their best to turn the company’s name into political shorthand to discredit just about anything. From Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who compared Bush’s budget proposal to Enron, to Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who likened the administration’s nuclear weapons policy to Enron’s accounting practices, the company’s name has become an all-purpose attack. Enron’s transformation into a political weapon illustrates how sound-bite strategies discrediting opponents by association are increasingly replacing substantive debate over issues of national importance.
In the wake of Enron’s collapse, pundits immediately went into full scandal mode, alleging corruption in vague and unsubstantiated ways. Politicians, however, remained relatively quiet until mid-January, when the next and more destructive phase of the Enron association game began. Taking their talking points from their counterparts in the media — a wait-and-see strategy that has become increasingly popular — Democratic politicians came out hurling the Enron name at the Bush administration and its policies.
On Jan. 13, Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri told the Washington Post that Democrats planned to attack Bush’s economic policies with the term “Enronomics” (a phrase that apparently originated in a Dec. 14 article on the Democratic Underground Web site). Palmieri claimed the term illustrates how “[Bush] cooks the books, uses rosy economic scenarios and doesn’t worry enough about the human side of the ledger … It was so hard to explain it before. Now you can explain it.” While the exact phrase has not caught on, Democrats are nonetheless running a carefully orchestrated campaign to attach “Enron” to fiscal policies they disagree with.
Not wanting to cede the initiative to the left, conservatives launched a counterattack with spin of their own. On Jan. 14, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial that claimed “the ultimate lesson may turn out to be that Enron was able to play fast and loose in a financial boom and Clintonian moral climate, and was called to account in a recession when the moral climate has turned Ashcroftian.” This is public relations rhetoric at its finest: The editorial creates a negative association between the company’s actions and Clinton, and, by contrast, casts a positive light on the actions of the “Ashcroftian” Bush administration. What exactly those “moral climates” are and how they led to Enron’s misdeeds is left to the imagination of the reader.
From there it was a very short leap for politicians and commentators from both sides of the aisle to begin wielding the company’s name protect their pet programs and attack their opposition. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, suggested that a proposal to cut funding for a music education program run by the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame would amount to “taking from the children to give to the Enrons of this world.” Enron has found its way into just about every running political debate, from globalization and the Bush administration’s secrecy to Amtrak and Social Security.
In political parlance, “Enron” has now become a verb and an adjective. In late January, Daschle, discussing Social Security, told a press conference that “I don’t want to Enron the people of the United States. I don’t want to see them holding the bag at the end of the day just like Enron employees have held the bag.” A few days later Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America’s Future issued a response to Bush’s State of the Union address, saying that the administration had proposed “an Enron stimulus package” and an “Enron energy plan.” And last Friday, Andrew Biggs of the Cato Institute claimed that “Social Security is already ‘Enron-ed’” and suggested that “doing nothing allows the system to go broke. And that’s the real ‘Enronization’ of Social Security.”
In short, Enron’s name has become a substitute for real debate over political priorities. Why bother to argue about why you disagree with Bush’s budget priorities when you can just compare them to Enron? The word “Enron” doesn’t explain anything — it’s simply a crude effort to substitute negative associations for reasoned argument.
A recent exchange reported by the Washington Times illustrates just how quickly both Republicans and Democrats are marching toward substance-free politics. Daschle said on Jan. 24, “I think that we are slowly ‘Enron-izing’ the economy, ‘Enron-izing’ the budget. We are taking the same approach Enron used in sapping retirement funds and providing them to those at the very top. That’s exactly what Enron did.” The response from conservatives? Republican Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott claimed such rhetoric was “ridiculous,” and suggested “Senator Daschle is trying to ‘Daschle-ize’ the budget by basically saying really what we need to do is less tax cuts, more tax increases and more spending.”
Daschle-ize vs. Enron-ize: Welcome to the nonsensical catchphrase politics of Election 2002.
Hungry for more Spinsanity? Click here.
