From The Los Angeles Times, 2/11/05:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait11feb11,0,2840209.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
The Baddest Man in D.C.
Harry who?
GOP will tell you.
By JONATHAN CHAIT
At this very moment, there are millions of conservatives across the
land who, unbeknown to them, will soon develop an intense personal
loathing for Nevada Sen. Harry Reid.
The process, inevitable as the changing of the seasons, began on
Monday night when the Republican National Committee distributed a
15-page memo accusing Reid, the chief Senate Democrat, of various
transgressions.
It's working.
Conservative talking heads have already begun expounding upon Reid's
treacherous ways.
Though many rank-and-file Republicans may have no strong feelings
about Reid today, and some have never even heard of him, it won't be
long before the very mention of the words "Harry Reid" will send GOP
partisans into paroxysms of rage.
The need for the campaign against Reid is clear enough.
Unlike the icy Hillary Rodham Clinton or the hotheaded Howard Dean,
Harry Reid does not easily lend himself to hostile caricature.
He is anti-abortion and anti-gun control.
As the New York Times reported, Reid "is appearing more often on
national television, where strategists in both parties say he comes
off as reasonable and evenhanded."
Republicans carried out a nearly identical operation to drive up
antagonism against Tom Daschle, the previous Democratic Senate leader,
who was also inconveniently mild-mannered.
Republicans sent out talking points, and in short order conservatives
everywhere found themselves deeply vexed by the previously
inoffensive, low-profile South Dakota senator.
Rush Limbaugh, taking the demonization campaign a tad too literally,
began calling Daschle "El Diablo."
Perhaps now, with the devil himself already having been used, Limbaugh
is thumbing through "Paradise Lost" looking for lesser satanic figures
after which to name Reid. (My money's on "Beelzebub.")
It's entirely natural that Republicans would have no love for a
leading Democrat.
And there's nothing wrong with hating a particularly loathsome member
of the other party, or even of your own party.
I've done plenty of both myself.
The trouble is that this particular campaign is highly dishonest.
A headline on the RNC document, for instance, calls Reid the "Chief
Democrat Obstructionist."
Now, "obstructionist" has a very specific meaning.
An obstructionist doesn't merely try to stop legislation he disagrees
with.
If that were the case, every minority leader in a legislative body
would be guilty of obstructionism.
Obstructionists try to stop any legislation from passing, good or bad,
merely to prevent the majority party from claiming credit.
During the first two years of the Clinton administration, Republican
Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole kept setting his preconditions higher
and higher until eventually he renounced his own healthcare bill.
Now that's obstructionism.
What act of actual obstructionism has Reid committed?
The charges center on his current opposition to privatizing Social
Security.
To suggest he has flip-flopped, the RNC quotes Reid as saying in 1999
"most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social
Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector."
Fox News apparatchiks Brit Hume and Sean Hannity have trumpeted this
as evidence that Reid has reversed himself out of expediency.
But the plan Reid praised, which Clinton floated five years ago, was
not privatization.
It called for the government to invest a portion of the Social
Security trust fund in stocks.
Unlike President Bush's plan, it wouldn't have exposed individuals to
any greater risk.
Nearly all privatization advocates opposed the Clinton plan, and
nearly all advocates of the Clinton plan oppose privatization.
The RNC also notes that in 1999 Reid took a trip to Chile to examine
its privatized pension system.
In fact, the high-minded explanation for Reid's trip is that he wanted
to learn about privatization, but he wasn't persuaded that it would
work in the United States.
The low-minded explanation is that he wanted a free junket to Chile.
Either way, there's no evidence he's changed his stance, let alone
that he's done so for partisan reasons.
The real reason Republicans object to Reid is that he's a Democrat who
disagrees with key points of Bush's agenda.
Of course, you can't very well whip the Fox News audience into a
lather by pointing at Reid and shouting:
"He's a Democrat, and he's voting against us! The nerve!"
Hence the need for insults like "obstructionist" and "partisan" --
another favorite term of abuse against both Reid and Daschle -- which
are merely ways of making membership in the other party sound like
some kind of affront.
__________________________________________________________
The only way to treat these wild animals is to counterattack.
Harry
.
|
