"Taliban Dan" and symmetric political tactics [updated]

*

Usually when I see the term "coarsening the political debate," it's usually part of a quote attributed to a member of the establishment political class, including politicians, think tank spokesmen, and celebrity columnists. Both sides denounce the practice, but I think our shared media experience strongly indicates that it's Republicans who systematically began doing this in earnest during the Nixon administration. I remember when Vice President Spiro Agnew, previously the corrupt governor of Maryland, being deployed over the media to tar liberals as the "nattering nabobs of negativism." It was an absurd construct that we teenagers laughed about, but it's my earliest recollection of a politician attempting to demonize a mainstream category of people. There were certainly other, more significant examples that went right past me.

After years of respite during the terms of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, the team that invented Reagan brought with it a whole arsenal of sneaky little tricks to coarsen the political debate in the form of deftly delivered wisecracks aimed at a lost generation of slowly aging hippies who had become ashamed of what they'd been (i.e., yuppies). During the early and mid-80s, I was less tuned into Republican attack politics than what was happening to public policy at their hands. I was paying more attention to the damage being wrought than the "enabling technologies" for that destruction. Still, I assume that there was some subtlety being applied by Reagan's strategy team.

Many of us might agree that Ground Zero of the postmodern "coarsening," yearwise, was 1988 shortly after the Democratic National Convention. Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis had won the nomination. He was a short, wonky, funny-looking guy who had performed well in his acceptance speech and was polling extremely well immediately afterward with what appeared to be a GOP-weary electorate. But the diabolical Lee Atwater was on the job for George Herbert Walker Bush, the patrician establishment archetype who somehow remained an utter pussy even after being shot down while piloting a torpedo bomber in the Pacific during World War II. I'm sure that most people over 40 or so remember the "Willie Horton" capital punishment campaign commercial during the 1988 presidential campaign, and the opportunity it set for a debate moderator to ambush Dukakis in one of the debates and finish taking the wind out of sails. The New England blueblood and a cynical South Carolina bigot teamed up to mainstream the coarsening of the political debate. My perception to this day is that Democrats rarely do it, and Republicans do it all the time because it's the best tactic they have for ongoing minority rule: keep average white people terrified of everyone who is different from them.

Democrats stupidly try to counter Republican coarsening with "taking the high road," which is an asymmetric strategy that has driven the party to timidity and irrelevance. Today they only participate in the power structure by giving Republicans what they want and pretending that even their most heinous enemies work in good faith. The last mainstream Democrat I remember pushing back hard against Republicans on the Senate floor, Dick Durbin in 2005, was quickly chastened after his experiment with expressing his unvarnished opinions about the Bush administration's Guantanamo interrogation tactics. He has behaved as if emasculated ever since he apologized for the remark a week after he made it. You see, by noting parallels between federal government activities and Nazism, you are coarsening the dialog... and we can't have that. Unless you're a Republican or a Tea Partier slandering a Democratic president's origin, religion, character, and motives.

Which (finally) brings me to this: a campaign ad by a Democrat that tries the novel approach of proactively using symmetric, not asymmetric, tactics against a right-wing opponent.



Alan Grayson's approach here is very much in the spirit of Lee Atwater. We could deconstruct its sleazy production value, the editing of the "Taliban Dan" clip, and especially the demonization of an already-unsavory right-wing nut with a catchy, ugly nickname shown in a pseudo-Arabic font. But what makes it different than Atwood's work, in my opinion, is that in back of the media packaging the ad's claims are documented and undeniable. They are not overstretched interpretations, lies, or pure hateful mockery as deployed by Atwater so effectively.

Coarse? Yes. But that cat was let out of the bag decades ago by the masters of divide-and-conquer politics. Effective? Yet to be seen. For an early indication, listen for Republican outrage about how Grayson has coarsened the dialog "beyond the pale" or some such thing. Next, note whether a debate moderator asks Taliban Dan live on TV whether he supports any rights for battered wives or whether he still believes God wills wives to SUBMIT to their husbands without exception. Finally, count the votes. There is reportedly some very big out-of-state money from "Big Pill," as Grayson calls Pharma, and other usual suspects. Moneywise, he's outgunned. So how else to fight overpowering opponents but by attacking their weakness... in this case, Taliban Dan. But you attack him using symmetric tactics.

Editor's note: I'll acknowledge Atrios for pointing to Digby's earlier discussion of Taliban Dan's bona fides, which include associations with the Christian Reconstructionists and white supremacist groups.

Addendum: also be alert in coming days for Responsible Liberals to scold Grayson for... guess what...?

Update: after posting this piece I appended with the first link in the fourth graf, which I discovered a few moments ago.