Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007 | 7:37 a.m.
In the political lexicon, words such as "bipartisan" and "consensus-building" once were seen as admirable labels. Now they are hurled as venomous epithets as a sad new world of litmus-test politics dominates the colloquy, where inflaming passions supersedes accomplishing goals and where demagoguery trumps problem-solving.
Just gaze capitalward this week and the truth is evident.
On one side are the forces of the left, epitomized by MoveOn.org, which believes it is productive to pay for a newspaper ad headlined, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" The subhead: "Cooking the books for the White House."
For the MoveOn folks, revered by the leftist blogosphere and feared by Democratic politicians, this kind of calumny is satisfying. It gets people - as in the base of the party, so they believe - ready to fight. And fighting is what this is all about.
On the other side are the tools of the right, taking the form of Freedom's Watch, which is airing ads that begin with a lie ("Congress was right to vote to fight terrorism in Iraq ...") and end with one ("It's no time for politics.").
For Freedom's Watch, funded by wealthy Republicans including Gondolier Numero Uno Sheldon Adelson, this kind of conflation of 9/11 and the war is similarly satisfying. It gives cover - or so they hope - to anyone fighting for the administration's Iraq policy. Again, fighting is what this is all about.
It's so much easier to slime a general or mislead people about the war's genesis than to debate the nuances of the surge's efficacy, to discuss when and how many troops can safely be brought home, or to argue about what our responsibility really is in Iraq after we are gone.
I am not suggesting that it is relatively new that nasty rhetoric and transparent button-pushing infect American polity. And there have been many times in history when discourse was much more coarse, when name-calling was not only worse but also more vulgar, when there was real violence instead of verbal battering.
But during most of the hurly-burly, there has rarely been this devaluing of compromise and the drowning out of middle-grounders. It's not just a "you're with us or you're against us" phenomenon; it's "you're with us or you will be labeled a traitor or quitter or worse."
Does anyone wonder why the Chuck Hagels and John Warners are getting out?
The arrogant condescension of the left, of which MoveOn is emblematic, is only equaled by the supreme disingenuousness of the right. I am not sure which is worse - the left's putative concern for the men and women overseas or the right's sickening use of "support for our troops" as a political bludgeon.
There is no longer a debate over Iraq. The 130,000 troops mired in that conflict are pawns in a game to gain partisan advantage in races for the White House and for Congress.
Democrats and Republicans had their post-Petraeus speeches ready long before the general spoke his first word. And the Nevada delegation was no different.
"The report is exactly what I said it would be," Rep. Shelley Berkley began. "The right thing to do is finish what we started," Rep. Jon Porter said. "Today's progress report contained some encouraging news," Sen. John Ensign declared. "The longer we keep over 130,000 troops in Iraq ..." Sen. Harry Reid began.
I'd love to have a forensic specialist discover when those were written. Only Rep. Dean Heller was less than predictable, saying, "Our role in Iraq is not an open-ended one." Even that was tepid and perhaps merely a sop to the prevailing political winds.
No longer are strongly held but thoughtful views prized. MoveOn and Freedom's Watch don't want anyone to think too hard.
It's who can best depress the American public to control electoral outcomes. Rabid, frothing views are the new ways to build coalitions, and the animus directed at those who do not hew to the orthodoxy (get out of Iraq or stay the course) is comically vicious.
The operatives on both sides figure that the more they can ratchet up the negativity and nastiness, the fewer people who have the temerity to be in the middle will participate. And that way it will just be a battle of ideas - or at least ideologies - and they always believe theirs is superior.
And such ideas: Petraeus is a traitor versus don't let another 9/11 happen.
I'm proud to be an American.
archive
