How to speak and not be a traitor…
Here’s today’s rhetoric quiz:
You must make a statement against a particular policy or action. Your opposition, however, may claim your statement gives comfort to a common enemy. How do you make your statement and avoid such criticism?
You might wish to use the comment function to type your answer. Here’s mine:
There is no statement you can make if your purpose is to avoid criticism. So criticism be damned.
It seems Sen. Tom Daschle is less than pleased with President Bush’s handling of the Iraq situation. He said, among other things, that he is “saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn’t create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.”
While this may be a bit melodramatic, does it really constitute coming “mighty close” to giving “comfort to our adversaries” as House Speaker Dennis Hastert claims? And, if so, then my question goes back to the quiz above: Just how does one articulate a position opposing the war without drawing what amounts to an accusation of treason from the Speaker of the House?
I suppose the alternative is that none of us should articulate such concerns. Instead, all of us–every one of us–should forget our founding principles and join lock-step on whatever path the President wishes us to follow (that vibration you’re feeling is James Madison spinning in his grave).
If I’m missing something here, please enlightenment me. Answer the quiz above with a statement that you think would not draw such fire. What rhetoric–exactly what words–should an American politician use to protest the war without drawing such fire from the Speaker. I do not know.
All this has just gotten silly – we all have the right to state an opinion – we all have the right to criticize that opinion – if you are going to go before a tv camera and make provocative statements you are going to draw fire – I’m sure Daschle was counting on it. Does anyone really believe Daschle will be hauled off and tried for treason? Same goes for all the celebrity hyperbole about McCarthysim – sheesh – give us a break!!!
Well, obviously, he won’t be hauled away. But my question is neither moot nor silly. Right now, it appears that the hawk strategy is to characterize all opposition as “pro-Saddam.” This has been going on for some time. I’d really like to know what a dove could say that a hawk wouldn’t characterize as “pro-Saddam.” In fact, I’m going to have one of my classes work on this problem on Friday.
On what planet will you not be criticized for making a comment? Barney World? Sesame Street? Mr. Rogers Neighborhod? GWB is criticized for NOT SPEAKING!(he’s a dumb cowboy, you know). You will be criticized no matter what you say or don’t say if you are in the public eye. These people are very well aware of what they are doing. The blogs are full of comment on how Daschle was urging unity when Clinton was bombing Iraq in l998, but now he’s “saddened” when GWB is doing the same. Maybe you could instruct your class in the fine art of political hypocrisy and partisanship. BTW, I didn’t mean to imply that you are moot or silly—but REALLY, where would you not be criticized? Iraq? North Korea? WHERE??????
In all fairness, Daschle’s comment was political in its characterization of his political arch-rival as a failure. So, the speaker upped the ante with his own smear. Since, as Cline points out, this has happened before, Rebecca is right that Daschle should have seen it coming.
But, to try and answer the question: I’d suggest maybe focusing on the bigger-fish-to-fry and long-term-net-results arguments. Avoiding the appearance of partisanship is crucial, too. It might not hurt to begin with the token “Saddam is evil, but…” rather than interject it as an afterthought. I’d also suggest informed proposals on alternate courses of action that will have greater humanitarian and/or security benefits. Yes, liberation will have humanitarian payoffs, but spend the bomb money on aids drugs and food for Africa and the humanitarian benefits will be greater. Yes, regime change will have security benefits, but alienating European and Muslim nations is unwise since we need their help tracking al Qaeda, and addressing the North Korean situation is more important since Iraq is moderately cooperating with the UN (North Korea believes it’s next on the hit list and may become desperate). A more wonkish approach is less likely to be called unpatriotic, I think (if more likely to be called pansy or unidealistic).
Lastly, a rhetorical veneer that distanced one from the europansies and anti-war celebs might help
Rebecca…again, obviously, there is no world in which we should expect no criticism. I’m talking about a very specific kind of criticism. Daschle may be criticized for any number of things regarding his rhetoric over the past few months. But is it reasonable to suppose that Hastert should hint at treason (serious or otherwise)?
It is not criticism that I seek for Daschle to avoid;it is a particular *kind* of criticism. I contend (no big news here) that the treason criticism is a calculated ploy. As such, it is pure propaganda.
–> I want to know what the limits are. Rebecca…again, obviously, there is no world in which we should expect no criticism. I’m talking about a very specific kind of criticism. Daschle may be criticized for any number of things regarding his rhetoric over the past few months. But is it reasonable to suppose that Hastert should hint at treason (serious or otherwise)?
It is not criticism that I seek for Daschle to avoid;it is a particular *kind* of criticism. I contend (no big news here) that the treason criticism is a calculated ploy. As such, it is pure propaganda.
–> I want to know what the limits are. <–
My goal here is not necessarily to criticize Hastert, but to call attention to a ploy and discover its limits.
This ploy, BTW, is very similar to the situation that Sen. Robert Taft found himself in at the start of WWII when he asserted his right to criticize America’s entry into that war. Was Taft giving comfort to Hitler? Or, was he exercising his right to free speech as a loyal American?
This is a NOT a right-left thing for me. If the positions were reversed, I’d call equal attention to transgressions by the Democrats (which I have done many times on this blog).
So, I’m still waiting for someone to come up with an anti-war statement that Hastart can’t/won’t call “close” to helping the enemy.
Com’on people…set aside your ideology for a moment and think about this as a rhetorical problem. It really is interesting.
Nathan…yes, you may be working along the “correct’ lines here. But you may recall that NRO has recently called “but” language (e.g. Saddam is evil, but…) just another way to weasel into treason.
Be that as it may, I think you’ve identified a way that Daschle could have spoken.
And, yes, he was asking for it…to a certain extent. Or, rather, calculated his remarks to draw exactly that criticism.
While I’m certainly focusing on Hastert’s transgressions, I in no way want to gloss over Daschle’s. I merely find Hastert’s more interesting at this moment.
Nathan- Daschle desperately needs you as his PR guy!!!
I’m for hire to any moderate politician of either major party
Thanks to you both. I actually saw a local man on TV last night ape Daschle, or at least I thought so, with the I’m-just-sad bit. Not that saddness, or righteous indignation, is an illigitimate emotion to express, but it occured to me that the phrase may emerge as the soundbite du jour for the thoughtful left (implying as it does both umbrage and moral superiority). My point (really an elaboration on my prior point) being: The medium is the problem. Condensing matters to soundbite-size exposes one to a host of accusations.* So, to avoid being maligned, dissident politicians may need to buck their instincts and avoid soundbite-friendly rhetoric, though perhaps at the expense of publicity. If you’re after a safe-dissent soundbite, Cline, then you may be on to something with “criticism be dammed.”
*I’d say Hastert also exposed himself with his comeback. I wonder if the Dems can muster not just indignation in response, but coverage of it.
Nathan…excellent point about the “sad” soundbite. I think you may be correct.
Yes, my ultimate position is criticism be damned. But I remain interested in the intellectual exercise of discovering the other argument. Part of my reason has nothing to do with wanting to avoid criticism, but something you suggest: Reactions to arguments, obviously, tell us much about those who react.
My project-manager, risk-management background causes me to come at this question from an unusual angle:
First, there’s the triple constraint: cheap, fast, good — pick two. Well, talk is cheap, so we don’t have to worry about that. But how long can the statement be? If it has to occupy 10 seconds (or less) of television, it’s going to have to be very well worded indeed to sound reasonable to (almost) everyone.
But if I could talk for a full minute, I’d talk about different risk-management strategies. Most people, without realizing it, consider only risk avoidance (don’t attack Iraq) and risk acceptance (attack Iraq irrespective of consequences). But there are also risk transference (deal with Iraq through a third party) and risk mitigation (pick targets carefully and rebuild the place afterward). I can imagine crafting a statement along these lines that accuses the President of risk acceptance while proffering alternatives of risk transference and risk mitigation — not merely risk avoidance.
I note that from the perspective of a US taxpayer, risk transference is what we do by having a Department of Defense. No Abraham Lincoln Brigade in this war … and notwithstanding this rhetorical exercise, I don’t think the Bush Administration (for which my admiration is quite limited) is really just taking the damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead approach, either. We’re seeing (at the national level) some risk acceptance, a decent amount of risk mitigation, and very limited risk transfer.
Interesting. Okay, how about this: Can you come up with a 20-second soundbite on risk transference?
I like your approach. I’m going to be giving my students this problem tomorrow.
I could draft one if I weren’t so busy at work. Besides, aren’t the KC bloggers getting together Monday night?
I’m a conservative. I support the war in Iraq, even though I do think North Korea merits much more attention than it’s getting right now. I also love to play the Devil’s advocate. After recent research into Nixon’s “Checker’s speech”–stimulated by my teacher, the host of this blog–I’ve been challenged to come up with something that I think Daschle would have been better off saying. It reads as follows:
“Our country values free speech, and we are told that even now we are entering a conflict to restore these rights to a tyrannized people. In that spirit of free speech and liberty, I must express my concern that we have not engaged in the necessary dialogue, diplomacy, and development of free speech to bring about a proactive, constructive and passive resolution to the crisis that we now face. I am indignant that we have been brought to the point where even a single life is being put in danger as a result of our unwillingness, inability, and indisposition to enact the virtues of free speech and discourse. I am saddened that our leadership has rendered free speech fruitless, negotiations negligible and nonessential, and made doublespeak of dialogue. As a patriot and man of principle, I cannot be silent in the face of such unprincipled, petty, and persistent acts which muzzle our freest expression, shackle our desire for peace and extinguish the dawn of hope that heralded the arrival of a new and better age.
“Yet, not for this will I condemn, criticize, or censure those courageous citizens who continually confront these circumstances in which they may be required to give the consummate and ultimate sacrifice in answer to their call and charge of duty. Every life willingly placed in the path of danger must be answered for by those men on both sides in whose hands and within whose power resided the possibility of peaceful resolution. There is a God. He will not forget. We will not forget. God bless America.”
Comments, anyone? Could I pass as a liberal?
Yes…Monday. At Uno’s, I think. 6:30?
Yo, Ben. It’s 2003, not 1903.
Gotta get that soundbite down to about 12 seconds 
We’ll work on it tomorrow. I’m facinated by a few of your choices.
BEN GARDNER FOR PRESIDENT!!!(even if it is in l903