[POLITICS] What would the right scandal be?

[jducoeur]

This started out as a comment in jp_pondside, but I eventually realized I had wandered off on a tangent. So I might as well expand it and give it its own posting. Warning: the tenor of the following questions is *intensely* cynical. I'm pondering truly nasty hardball politics here.

The Jeff Gannon affair is brewing into a bit of a mini-scandal for the Bush White House -- really, it's hard to imagine anything more embarassing to that crew than the notion that they had given press credentials to a gay male escort so that he could shill for them in the media. And yet, it still hasn't quite fired the popular imagination: it's getting some press, but it's still being soft-pedaled and getting a bit of a collective shrug from the public. And on some level, I'm not surprised: it just doesn't feel like the right scandal to break this Administration.

There's seems to be a sort of "steam-engine time" for White House scandals, and they take the right collective gestalt to turn into a feeding frenzy. Watergate was the right scandal to bring down Nixon, because everyone was primed to believe that he was a ruthless crook. It's unsurprising in retrospect that the Lewinsky mess tarred Clinton so badly, because everyone believed that his morals were rather loose, and many believed that he was a bit dishonest.

So here's a question: what would be the scandal that could really damage the Shrub? He's a tougher target than many, since so much of the country has practically beatified him; OTOH, his Administration is getting to be so rich in potential scandals that there are certainly lots of targets. More specifically, the question is what sort of scandal would be the right one to *focus* on. They're providing so much raw material that it breeds a sort of scandal-fatigue. It seems to me that we need specific war drums; what should they be saying?

Second question: when would be the right time for such a scandal to break? "As soon as possible" is *not* the obviously correct answer -- at the moment, we're early in the election cycle, and there is lots of time for stuff to blow over. Would the most propitious time for a scandal be next year, in time for the midterm congressional elections? Later yet, to tar Jeb, or whichever other puppet they put into the next presidential race? Or does it in fact make sense to try to lame this administration early?

This question feeds back into the first one, because it goes to goals. Getting Bush out of the White House is no longer the primary objective -- it's going to happen in four years regardless, and probably can't be accelerated. (Anyone who thinks that impeachment is a likely option is living in a political dreamland: the Republicans are still much too disciplined to make that mistake until and unless the scandal is truly breathtaking, and it's hard to hit that level these days.) The far more important goal, I believe, is to break the power of the neo-cons and the religious right, preferably to discredit them politically.

Mind, I'm not proposing anyone make something up -- the Dan Rather debacle during the Presidential election demonstrated how dangerous that particular game is. But as I said, we currently have an astonishingly target-rich environment: just in the past year there has been an endless stream of revelations, any one of which would have horrified people even ten years ago. But the left continues to be utterly inept in leveraging this into real political capital.

Which, I suppose, goes to the third and fundamental question that underlies all of this. Say you were a cold-eyed political strategist for the left, with a mandate to destroy the neo-cons -- the nemesis of Karl Rove, essentially. Throw out all considerations of what is right and just, and get down in the mud that the right is so effectively slinging. How would you go about it? Would you focus on one scandal, or a succession of them, or is that the wrong tack entirely? Would it be best done with a clear strategic plan, or opportunistically?

I'm entirely content to hear counter-arguments, that the cynical approach is fundamentally flawed. But I am starting with the premise that the body politic is quite sick right now, with some pretty skilled, clever and ruthless demogogues doing a remarkably good job of pulling its strings. (The image of a vomiting puppet is somehow viscerally apt.) Calmly holding the moral high ground has not, so far, been terribly effective in getting them out of power. So I'm trying to understand what the alternatives are, and generally a get feel for how this cyberpunk-age political science (which may be nothing more than a return to some older models, deep down) really works. Facts and speculation are both welcomed...

Comments

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

The Gannon affair isn't working, because the public hasn't trusted the media for quite some time - so finding yet another example of media self-corruption is no big deal to most.

Clinton was screwed because the special counsel's office understood the Chinese Water Torture form of publicity.

If I were looking to muck-rake, I'd focus on the mid-term elections, and see if I could prove that some White House featured legislation was the product of palpable corruption. And then show various members of Congress shilling it.

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are beginning to distance themselves from the White House already, as a defensive measure.

[jducoeur]

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are beginning to distance themselves from the White House already, as a defensive measure.

I've noticed a bit of that, and it's the most encouraging sign out there. The only reason the White House has managed to get away with the murder it has is that the Republican party has been extremely disciplined, following a very tight whip for years. If a wedge can be driven there somehow, it could turn into a downspiral for the White House fairly quickly...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Nah, their discipline is holding - but they are creating plausible deniability.

[querldox.livejournal.com]

I think the best bet would be something very big that was tied into Iraq or terrorism (but, unfortunately, violating civil liberties doesn't seem likely to work). Basically, I figure Bush won only because of a combo of a climate of fear, Rove shoring up his base with cultural issues (the gay marriage referendums on many state ballots), and Kerry being a candidate that couldn't inspire significant support beyond the "Kerry is my hamster" concept. The latter two don't lend themselves to scandals (particularly, for the second, given Chaney's daughter is already out), so it's gotta be the first to really hit hard.

[jducoeur]

My current bet for Best Scandal is some juicy corruption related to Iraq -- if the war can be *effectively* presented as being motivated by people trying to line their pockets, it could knock the whole house of cards over. But it would require a smoking gun for people to pay attention...

[(Anonymous)]

I'm leaving this comment anonymously...but there is a very widespread rumor that one of Bush's daughters had a (legal) abortion while she was in college. If this is true, and can be verified, it might spike Bush's guns somewhat in terms of supporting anti-abortion candidates in the 2006 elections.

[jducoeur]

Possible, but consider that it's in a very similar category to Bush's own (well-known) alcoholism, as well as his likely war-dodging, not to mention Cheney's largely outed daughter. They've proven themselves extremely effective at making their personal history out to be minor peccadilloes. (Never mind the way they hounded Clinton for much the same...)

*sigh* fine, fine... my two cents

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

If you could find evidence of the Bush White House doing something that favored some other nation (especially in return for money or personal favors, not in return for something that could be seen as a benefit to 'America') at the expense of America's security.... then he'd be gone. I don't expect that to happen, but that's what would really frame him as the kind of hypocrite the people who voted for him wouldn't be able to stomach.

Personal vice matters are really not going to hit the demographic that supported him the same way... especially if it's only something a daughter did (as opposed to something he personally did). Any modern conservative will admit that there's only so much a beleagured modern parent trying to do the right thing can do to control their offspring in the face of the big bad world.

Re: *sigh* fine, fine... my two cents

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

especially if the offspring in question wasn't living at home at the time.

Re: *sigh* fine, fine... my two cents

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

If you could find evidence of the Bush White House doing something that favored some other nation (especially in return for money or personal favors, not in return for something that could be seen as a benefit to 'America') at the expense of America's security.... then he'd be gone.

Already happened. Bin Laden's relatives were rushed out of the US on specially-approved planes right after 9/11. Saudi Arabia remains our "ally", despite being more of a "training ground for terrorists" than Iraq could ever have dreamed of being (pre-invasion). It *ought* to be enough, but it doesn't seem to be.

Re: *sigh* fine, fine... my two cents

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

What was the personal vs national money/favors received in return?

If Bush, Cheney, whoever got a yacht or paycheck or deed to a middle east oil field out if it and that could be proven was the incentive for making that decision that would be seen as one thing. If the 'benefit' is 'this country is really useful to the US so we'll just fire all _around_ them to get what we want a different way' then you're still not talking about something that will bother his prime constituency... it's still a situation that can be spun as 'for the good of the nation'.

Re: *sigh* fine, fine... my two cents

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

What was the personal vs national money/favors received in return?

A semi-controllable pet in OPEC, and one that would sell oil outside of OPEC guidelines if we needed it. Which they have. In return, we let them handle their mudrassahs their way, and we don't force or embarass them into democratic behaviors, and we let their elite alone.

The "awl bidness", of course, is good for Bush, his cronies and his big donors.

Re: *sigh* fine, fine... my two cents

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately that's too complex to resolve down to "he got personal gain" for the demographic that support him.

"In return for this strategy he gets control" sounds good to them, not bad no matter what the surrounding text says

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

I think it would have to be a major sex scandal involving him directly. Which is highly unlikely. But the majority seem to not pay attention to any other sins.

[corwyn-ap.livejournal.com]

Downfall of the house of Saud.

[jducoeur]

Interesting -- what's your reasoning? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just not following the chain of logic...

[corwyn-ap.livejournal.com]

1) It has been postulated that Osama bin Laden's objective is the fall of the house of Saud. If it happened it would be the triumph of the terrorists. An distinct embarrassment.

2) Since it is likely, that the house of Saud is our government's sole friend in the area, it would severely reduce our oil inflow. It is possible that all our interests in that country would be nationalized (or at least threatened to be so). Saudi Arabia has picked up the production of oil for all our losses in other areas (e.g. Iraq). Even a neutral Saudi Arabia would cause a large drop in our oil inflow. An actively hostile one (fighting only with oil) would throw this country into a depression to make 1930's seem like a picnic.

3) Assuming this all did not start full blown world war III, it seems likely that people would get rid of whomever was in power, regardless of politics.

4) If you really want to be scared, check out the CIA's operation with regard to the house of Saud.

[jducoeur]

Hmm. I disagree about point 1 -- while it would be a diplomatic embarassment, the average American hasn't the foggiest *clue* that Osama has anything to do with Saudi Arabia. But point 2 is a very good one: an oil shock would be devastating on many levels, and if it was pinned on Bush Administration policies that would probably have a very strong effect...

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Start first with determining your goals.

I don't believe the long-term goal of breaking the power of the so-called "neo-cons" will be served well by attacking to try to "break" the Shrub. He may be the titular head, but the body would survive his removal.

So, that leaves you two basic paths - slow down the Neo-cons, or break the Neo-cons.

There's a lot to be said for simply slowing down the neo-cons. A great deal can happen in three years, and keeping the opponent on the defensive for much of that time can leave you in a far better position later. To slow down the neo-cons, you need to discredit the Shrub or his policies so badly that the "lame duck" portion of his reign begins early. Best attack would be before the mid-term elections. The change of a relatively small number of seats could mean a lot in keeping ugly legislation at bay.

Breaking the neo-cons, as I noted earlier, would not likely be achieved by attacking Bush. It is perhaps wise to note that the neo-cons did not "break" the Democrats in any single stroke. Instead, they've managed to gain power through a long, slow process in which they managed public opinion much better than the Democrats have. One way to beat them would be to learn their game, and play it better than they do. Democrats are rapidly learning the trade, but they need time to catch up.

[jducoeur]

I largely agree -- indeed, I was sort of talking myself around to that viewpoint over the course of writing the original post. (Which is why it wanders a bit.)

Indeed, I'm coming to suspect that discrediting Bush himself may be less important than discrediting Karl Rove, who seems to be setting himself up as a kingmaker in Washington. He seems likely to provide something of a backbone for the neo-cons, a single figure who everyone is going to acknowledge, sort of like some of the elderly Japanese political kingmakers. Discredit *him* in a way that knocks him out of that unifying position, and you potentially throw the neo-cons into disarray for the next elections.

All that said, I agree that the Democrats need to learn how to manage their message better, to present a more consistent alternative. That's the positive side of the equation...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Discrediting Rove? We're back to Gannon/Guckert again, aren't we? Or the new American Energy Policy.

When the election was credibly still possible for Kerry, I'd joked with a Canadian friend (Freya) that "If Kerry wins on Tuesday, on Wednesday the sound of paper shredders fire all over Washington, like lawn-mowers on a suburban Saturday."

We'll only see death to neo-cons if there is a paper-trail alive after the 2008 elections and if a Democract wins.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

Both tactical victories and strategic planning are going to be needed. This reply is going on too long so I'll just mumble about tactics.

Tactically, the opposition needs to get back either the Presidency or effective control of Congress. With both the bully pulpit and legislative agenda in the same poliitical hands, there just isn't going to be any ability to change the direction of the country or successfully sustain any scandal short of an outright felony. Even the ongoing investigations have been muted and revelations are now quietly filtering out just post-election. Even the Plame scandal seems to be just marking time until a large enough issue appears so that Scooter Libby (my guess) can be shown the door to a quick and speedy show trial. A big investigation into fraud and waste during Gerogie's Invasion isn't going to happen since the public is still behind the troops and (kinda-mostly) behind the effort. What few whistleblowers there have been have been administratively or legally silenced. What investigative journalism is still around is starved and/or drowned out by the shouting class catering to the most credulous of the nation.

It took years of steady losses in Vietnam for the public to start taking notice. Certainly no one here seems to care that life in Iraq is worse by nearly every practical measure since the invasion. The whole torture issue? Pffft. But short of a real wild card, though, I just don't see anything popping up to damage Georgie. The loyalty and walls around Georgie's inner circle are just too strong. And the majority of the nation--not just the majority of voters--have either been frightened, bribed or are in a kill-the-ragheads state of mind.

One possible wild card is a big loss of American lives in Iraq. Like the mess hall suicide bomber a month or so back, but much more effective, killing a thousand or so and not just a few dozen. Our soldiers are hopefully too smart to let such a risk happen, I suspect, and I would hate to see it, but that would suddenly rivet the attention of the great unwashed.

And note that I said opposition. The moderate (what I call "small C" conservative) wing of the GOP needs to take back control of the party, too (cf. Whitman's recent book.) It's been interesting watching the side-stepping and backpedaling going by some GOP Congressmen to Georgie's latest domestic proposals and a somewhat muted response to foreign policy proposals. I suspect, however that the so-called Social Security reform issue will sink into the muck without any changes, even though that will have barely an effect on Georgie's second term, coming too early for people to remember in 2006 and 2008. And the ties of party loyalty are strong, regardless, so there may be nothing else that comes up. It will be really interesting to see what happens in 2007-8 and whom Georgie and/or Rove try to annoint as a new paladin. (Mitt Rommey anyone?)

It's still the economy.

[sun-in-splendor.livejournal.com]

Just this past week:
Leading indicators have declined.
The index of lagging indicators was flat in January after in December and November.
Core inflation has jumped it's largest jump in ten years.
Index of consumer sentiment decreased in January.
Job market participation is falling (paradoxically the unemployment rate has fallen as many job hunters give up and are no longer counted)

Two very scary developments (and I apologize if I get technical)

The Korean Central Bank has said that it will "diversify" it's holdings, meaning that it buy currencies other than the dollar to keep its reserves in. They no longer consider the dollar a safe currency to hold. Other Central banks such as Japan and China may do the same. The only thing that has kept the US economy from going bust in the past couple of years, and the thing fueling the low interest rates that keep the engine of the Bush "recovery" (the strong housing market) going is the willingness of the foreign banks to keep investing in the US government and US economy. Unless things change fast the US economy is in REAL BIG TROUBLE.

As Greenspan was saying last week, we are in an INVERSE YIELD CURVE, a very rare economic situation that has always been followed by a big recession. The relationship between long term and short term interest rates are flipped, and investors make short term investments (and drive short term interest rates up) because they think the long term investment prospects are very bad, and that the economy is in for big fall. It works as an indicator of recession because if investors THINK there will be a crash and INVEST like there will be a crash, then there WILL be a crash.

I blame the Bush Bunch for their harebrained economic schemes, their failure to support the dollar, their continuing "overseas-oning" of US jobs and the US economy, their rampant corruption and cronyism, their cooking the budget, their failure to curb the debt, the crippling cost of their war and of their security state, their failure to get foreign support for the US, failure to instill confidence in the US economy and the impression that the US is an unreliable partner, their focus on the side issues that they think will gain them cheap political points instead of tackling the big imminent problems that are harder to fix.

Bush has always tried to take the easy way, and it always ends up costing a lot more to fix. His total incompetence at handeling the economy is one of the biggest scandals of his term.

Re: It's still the economy.

[jducoeur]

Good point, if scary -- if things crash as badly as they might, it could change things dramatically. I caught the Korea thing in passing on the news last night, and it chilled me to the core: I've been saying for a while now that, when the crash comes, it'll come fast, and all it takes is a serious confidence blow. This could well be that impetus.

OTOH, the cynic in me points out that a recession at the beginning of a term is often forgotten by the end. It's astonishing and depressing how short peoples' attention span is. If the recession was less than two years, it's conceivable that they could still manage to rally by the next presidential election. (Although it might well change the complexion of Congress considerably in the meantime.)

I don't actually have a problem with some of the policies (the offshoring thing really doesn't bother me much). But the sheer irresponsibility of the budget is breathtaking, and when combined with their skill at alienating the rest of the world, it has made the economy horribly fragile in an amazingly short time...

Re: It's still the economy.

[sun-in-splendor.livejournal.com]

People often forget that economics is a "soft" science and that psychology plays a big part in how the economy does. The Korean Central Bank's actions shows that foreign investors are losing confidence in US as a safe bet. The inverse yield curve shows that US investors are betting against the success of the US economy. If the psychology of the economy is negative, then the economy will crash.

I'm thinking about switching most of my investments to more defensive positions. Shows how much "confidence" I have in Bush.

I'm mixed on off-shoring. I don't think that companies should be stopped for moving jobs overseas if it is their best business interest, but I'm mad that the government rewards them for doing it. It should be a neutral business, not something that they are paid to do.

The Bush Bunch has done an excellent job of mis-directing the attention of most Americans away from the horrible job that they are doing in actually running the county, into "distractions" like the war (equating support of the war to patriotism), gay marriage, tax cuts, etc.

Mark - I've revised my bio so maybe you can winkle me out now. ;)

Re: It's still the economy.

[jducoeur]

I've revised my bio so maybe you can winkle me out now.

Ah! Okay, fine -- you were indeed one of the people I suspected you might be. Howdy!