The Politics of Sensibility

Nicholas D. Kristof, writing at the New York Times, is discouraged by the tone of this campaign. Commenting on the Swift Boat attacks, he says;

Every single enlisted man who served with Mr. Kerry on his boats at the time he earned his Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars say the medals were all deserved, and they are all supporting his candidacy.

True, Democrats have also engaged in below-the-belt attacks. Some of "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Michael Moore film, was the liberal equivalent of the anti-Kerry smears. Its innuendos implying that Mr. Bush arranged the war in Afghanistan so backers could profit from an oil pipeline were appalling.

But I, along with some others, immediately complained about "Fahrenheit 9/11." Aside from John McCain, where are the sensible conservatives? Why don't they denounce the Swift Boat Veterans' attacks? And why doesn't President Bush condemn those attacks, showing the kind of integrity that Mr. Dukakis showed?

The last line refers to an incident in the 1988 campaign, in which some of the men who served with President Bush 41 in WW2 accused him of ditching his plane and leaving two other men to die. There was a brief investigation, little was found, and, as Kristof notes, Dukakis condemned the attacks.

Mr. Kristof, however, does engage in a little bit of rhetorical slight of hand himself.

The only hope for stopping the mudslinging is if well-meaning people try to police their own side.

If they're intellectually consistent, Democrats will speak out not only against the Swift Boat Veterans but also against Mr. Kerry's demagoguery on trade, like his suggestion that outsourcing is the result of Mr. Bush's economic policies. Trade demagoguery may not be as felonious as an assault on a war hero's character, but it harms America by undermining support for free trade.

I certainly agree with that first statement. It is up to Republicans to reject the lies of the Swift Boat Vets and the demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter (I am dreading her article tomorrow, as she gets to fillet Dan Rather, a task which, I assume, she will approach with her usual gusto). I see no evidence, however, that they are interested in policing their own.

But the second part is interesting. In it, Mr. Kristof seems to suggest that telling lies about Senator Kerry's past is, in some ways, equivalent to Senator Kerry not holding the same opinion about free trade that he does. Why is Senator Kerry required to have exactly the same opinion on Free Trade that you do? Why is the Democratic Party required to have that opinion? The truth is that unregulated free trade has some serious downsides as well as a positive sides. Why shouldn't he draw attention to these problems?

And yes, President Bush might not have directly created these problems, but it's also a truism that he is completely unwilling to address fixing them (particularly if such a fix would come at the expense of corporate power).

Lies are not the same as Disagreements, Mr. Kristof. You rhetorically shoot yourself in the foot when you make them equivalent. Presumably this is what Mr. Tom Tomorrow is referring to when he labels you a Sensible Liberal.

At least I hope that is what Mr. Tomorrow is referring to. Mr. Tomorrow and Mr. Kristof have one thing in common; they both have very very strong ideas of what a Liberal must be and must think. If Senator Kerry suggests more regulation on Free Trade, than to Mr. Kristof, that's a betrayal of what a real liberal is supposed to be and a deception. If Mr. Kristof expresses support for Free Trade, than, in Mr. Tomorrow's eyes, he's betraying liberalism and must be denigrated as a phony liberal or a "sensible liberal."