Go to Original
The Uncivil War
By Paul Krugman
New York Times
Tuesday 25 November 2003
"One of the problems with media coverage of this
administration," wrote Eric Alterman in The Nation, "is that it requires bad
manners."
He's right. There's no nice way to explain how the
administration uses cooked numbers to sell its tax cuts, or how its arrogance
and gullibility led to the current mess in Iraq.
So it was predictable that the administration and its
allies, no longer very successful at claiming that questioning the president is
unpatriotic, would use appeals to good manners as a way to silence critics. Not,
mind you, that Emily Post has taken over the Republican Party: the same people
who denounce liberal incivility continue to impugn the motives of their
opponents.
Smart conservatives admit that their own side was a
bit rude during the Clinton years. But now, they say, they've learned better,
and it's those angry liberals who have a problem. The reality, however, is that
they can only convince themselves that liberals have an anger problem by
applying a double standard.
When Ann Coulter expresses regret that Timothy
McVeigh didn't blow up The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal laughs it off
as "tongue-in-cheek agitprop." But when Al Franken writes about lies and lying
liars in a funny, but carefully researched book, he's degrading the discourse.
More important, the Bush administration — which likes
to portray itself as the inheritor of Reagan-like optimism — actually has a
Nixonian habit of demonizing its opponents.
For example, here's President Bush on critics of his
economic policies: "Some say, well, maybe the recession should have been deeper.
It bothers me when people say that." Because he used the word "some," he didn't
literally lie — no doubt a careful search will find someone, somewhere, who says
the recession should have been deeper. But he clearly intended to suggest that
those who disagree with his policies don't care about helping the economy.
And that's nothing compared with the tactics now
being used on foreign policy.
The campaign against "political hate speech"
originates with the Republican National Committee. But last week the committee
unveiled its first ad for the 2004 campaign, and it's as hateful as they come.
"Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," it
declares.
Again, there's that weasel word "some." No doubt
someone doesn't believe that we should attack terrorists. But the serious
criticism of the president, as the committee knows very well, is the reverse:
that after an initial victory in Afghanistan he shifted his attention — and
crucial resources — from fighting terrorism to other projects.
What the critics say is that this loss of focus
seriously damaged the campaign against terrorism. Strategic assets in limited
supply, like Special Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted
from Afghanistan to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators,
were shifted from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably
allowed Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely
helped the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. And the Iraq war has, by all
accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting. Is saying all this attacking the
president for attacking the terrorists?
The ad was clearly intended to insinuate once again —
without saying anything falsifiable — that there was a link between Iraq and
9/11. (Now that the Iraq venture has turned sour, this claim is suddenly making
the rounds again, even though no significant new evidence has surfaced.) But it
was also designed to imply that critics are soft on terror.
All this fuss about civility, then, is an attempt to
bully critics into unilaterally disarming — into being demure and respectful of
the president, even while his campaign chairman declares that the 2004 election
will be a choice "between victory in Iraq and insecurity in America."
And even aside from the double standard, how
important is civility? I'm all for good manners, but this isn't a dinner party.
The opposing sides in our national debate are far apart on fundamental issues,
from fiscal and environmental policies to national security and civil liberties.
It's the duty of pundits and politicians to make those differences clear, not to
play them down for fear that someone will be offended.
-------
Jump to TO Features for Wednesday 26 November 2003
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.)
Print This Story
E-mail This Story