Corollary

As a corollary to the note below on the dangers of partisanship becoming triumphant within the polarized nature of current US politics, one danger is that anything that happens, or is done, by either side but particularly by the White House over the next seven-plus months, will be viewed even more than usual as political.

If George Bush averts a world crisis, it will be seen as an cynical attempt to garner “scare-mongered” votes. If John Kerry dives into a river to rescue a drowning child, it will be seen as a cynical attempt to garner the “family values” vote. If George Bush vetoes a bill to dump sulfuric acid onto babies’ heads, it will be seen as a cynical attempt to deflect criticism over his environmental policy. If John Kerry shows up to vote against such a bill, it will be seen as a cynical attempt to criticize the Bush Administration environmental policy. If Bush battles Satan and his invading demonic hordes with nothing but a crucifix and a silver dagger, he’ll be accused of pandering to Christian Conservatives. If Kerry personally goes to Afghanistan, tracks down bin Ladin, and blows his brains out with a pistol, he’ll be accused of merely trying to weaken Bush support among gun owners.

The irony is that the cynicism may be as much in the eye of the beholder as in the doer. The cynic assumes others are just as cynical, just as the naif assumes others operate from the goodness of their hearts, just as they do.

Now, doubtless political concerns will provide some color to the thinking of Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry during the course of the campaign. How what they do will be perceived by the American public will influence them. But will political concerns trump all others? Can either man do things that aren’t molded by the calculus of next November’s results? And if they do, will it be seen that way?

And it gets worse than just an atmostphere of cynicism. The WaPo has an article this morning about plans for a joint US/UK anti-terrorism exercise, a live drill to test how both nations could “respond to a major, coordinated terrorist attack.” Probably not a bad idea, all things considered, whether you’re a Bush supporter who backs the War on Terror, or a Bush opponent who thought the response to 9/11 was woefully inadequate.

But don’t expect to see the exercise any time soon. British Home Secretary David Blunkett passes the following on:

The joint exercise, which will build on mock attacks staged in Britain last autumn, is unlikely to occur before the U.S. presidential election in November. But it also needs to take place before next spring, the home secretary adds, since that is when a window opens for Britain’s next general election.
[…] Trying to stage a national civil defense exercise in the run-up to an election “would be very difficult,” given the current corrosive political moods in both countries, Blunkett says. The incumbents would risk being accused of playing politics with national security.

So an exercise that most folks I think would consider, on its own merits, a good idea will be shelved for months (but not too many months). The Bush Administration is afraid of being painted again as manipulative on national security matters (since there’s no doubt that Kerry’s supporters would make just that accusation). And if anything went wrong in the exercise — or if it could be spun as going wrong — it would even more politically disastrous. Political fear, fear of the cynical perceptions of political doings, thus paralyzes effective government. And as it’s fear at least in part justified by the vitriol unleashed on the Bush Administration by its opponents toward whatever it does, simply because they are the ones doing it.

(As an analog, and to demonstrate that this is not limited to any one party, note that when Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles as Saddam, or OBL, he was accused both of trying to distract from his own domestic problems by “Wag the Dog” banging on war drums and of being woefully inadequate in his response to international threats … often by the same critics.)

Politics has seemingly grown, in the public and in the halls of government, more and more difficult over the last twenty years, certainly in the last ten, and particuarly during presidential election years. Can we really afford to have, as a result, no effective government during at least one of each four years? Especially right now?

(via Rantingprofs)