Sticking a “Big Lie” on Bush is not strictly The Big Smear. To qualify, the accusation has to be baseless besides being base. The Big Smear is not a smear unless it’s totally untrue. Ann Richards is a lesbian. John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. John Kerry faked his war wounds and doesn’t deserve his medals. Even though untrue, enough people believed these smears to make the candidates lose.
It might be called the “Fuck Pigs” strategy. But to work best, The Big Smear will attack the opponent on his strongest issue: Kerry’s war-hero status was the best thing about him, so that was the very quality that the Swift boat campaign called into question. That’s why this smear counts as by far the most telling one in modern politics.
The question has been raised: Why does the rightwing happily indulge in The Big Smear while the leftwing doesn’t?
There could be many reasons. The left is soft. The left doesn’t play to win. The left believes the end doesn’t justify the means. The left is less macho than the right. The left is always full of doubt. The left questions itself too much. The left is too hung up on being honest. The left sees itself as a crusader against lies. To the left, the other guy is always the liar.
How does the right justify using The Big Smear? I believe it’s because they really, really believe the left is very bad for the country. They have a more fervent belief in their own righteousness than the left has in theirs. Unlike the left, the right harbors no doubts. Having the left get in power is so bad, they believe it’s OK to use The Big Smear to prevent such a dire thing. Of course the end justifies the means. No discussion.
Also, the right loves money. The left wants to take it away from them. Can you think of stronger reason to use The Big Smear? On a philosophical level, the late academic Leo Strauss, a neocon hero, advocated the usefulness of the noble lie in politics. To the right, the lefties are such a decadent bunch, The Big Smear is a small price to pay to bring these immoral stinkers down.
In the end, it may simply mean that people on the right are better haters than the left.
FOUND THIS interesting? More stuff like it at Adam Ash.
Ed: JH
Article comments
1 - Nancy
Your last several paragraphs pretty much answered the questions posed: because too many on the right (especially those in the current administration) have no morals, no ethics, and no honor, or worse, are willing to tolerate those with no morals, ethics, or honor to speak in their names, therefore sinking oppositional tactics to a new low on their part. One reason I despise Bush so much is because he hijacked what was an honorable conservative party & turned it into a cesspool full of maggots like Rove.
2 - Kirk Muse
Regarding Karl Rove's tall, dark and handsome young son, Andrew Rove. Why is he not in the military fighting for the
so-called "noble cause?"
Since Andrew Rove doesn't look anything like his alleged father, I wonder who the sperm donor was.
3 - gonzo marx
i'd like to say, very nice Article here...much to think about and ponder..
my first reaction is that it does revolve around the "ends justify the means" mentality..it does permeate everything the GOP has done for the last 10-15 years
the "seed" could possibly be recognized as Regan's "11th commandment" of not criticizing other republicans...this not only stopped internal debate among the GOP, but fostered a "united front" prescence (even among those that disagreed) that helped enable the "talking points" noise machine
the Dems have nothing like it, quite possibly due to their propensity to want to think things over, and argue with each other to find a concensus rather than accepting a single source "authoritarian" Voice to tell them everything
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
4 - Phillip Winn
I'm no longer amazed when I read statements like "I’ve noticed a peculiar difference between rightwing and leftwing political attacks." I just wait, hoping that in a few years the writer will realize that such comparisons are silly.
The nature of dialog between the parties has little to do with anything inherent in their views, and much to do with which party is in power and the folks who happen to be in various positions at the time.
Pick any comparison which sets your favored party against the evil other party, and someone will be able to point to a counter-example, though often in a different year.
It never ends.
5 - Nancy
I don't think so, Phil; I've noticed myself that in the past 6 years or so the Dems have gotten more & more supine, while over the past 30 the GOP has gotten more & more ... ruthless, I guess is the word I'm looking for. Sort of like the Nixon scandal was the last straw, & like Scarlett, they vowed this would never happen again if they could get away with it.
6 - Phillip Winn
Of course you don't, Nancy.
7 - Nancy
Of course I don't - what? Something missing there I don't connect....
8 - Steve S
I think he means of course you don't think so, in reference to the first sentence of comment 5?
9 - Lee Murtha
It isn't so much that the new radical right (Rove type republicans ) use personal smears & lots of well paid media propaganda....which they do, but that the left still thinks it's all about intelligence & facts.
But the basic problem really seems to be that the current administration of Repressionists is destroying our constitution while making it a law to hurt the flag. nauseous is the word that comes to mind.
Lee
10 - Jeff
A couple of comments.
Adam Ash: First whil Rove is an arch smearmonger he's hardly the "all-time champion" of such a tactic. Richard Nixon was a smear master par excellence who use commie accusations and race baiting to advance his political career. Nixons buddy Joe McCarthy did far more damage with his smear attacks on American citizens than Karl Rove could ever dream of. First abolitionists and later civil rights advocates were smeared with the label of miscegenation. Abolitionists in turn smeared slaveholders as "man-stealers" and rapists. Rove's smears have also been fairly discreet (in the sense of being limited in scope), actions of convenience to win specific campaigns. Indeed the Plame scandal is an example of the short term nature of Roves smearing. Joseph Wilson popped up as an opponent and Rove immediately turned to smearing with little or no regard for the possible consequences and now those consequences are catching up to him. Rove's smears, in and of themselves will probably have little lasting effect (as opposed to the impact of President Bush who they helped to elect). Two smears, from about the same era, are still radically effecting politics. Richard Nixon's SOuthern Strategy which smeared the Democrats as the party that "betrayed" the white South paved the way for the currently dominant Republican coalition. THe more general smear from the same era of Liberals being weak on foreign policy still hampers the Democrats today.
My second point is that I don't think the current propensity for the Right to smear more than the Left has anything to do with the strength of their beliefs. I think it has more to do with the nature of those belifs. Since the politically liberal Democratic coalition of the depression era took control of American government Liberals have tended to look toward systems, be they governmental or non-governmental, as the solution to problems. For years the Left got great mileage out of this faith. They weathered the great depression, won WWII, built a new international system and an unbeleivably prosperous American economy, and they ended legal racism in the United States after nearly two centuries. The Right, at least in an ultimate philosophical sense, stands against this faith in systems. With its anti-government critique the Right embodies an implicit distrust of civil society. My point is that the Left is, at least currently, more reluctant to engage in smear campaigns because they believe in the integrity of the political process. Maybe this is naive but I think they have more of a belief in the idea that there are certain rules that the game is played by. The Right is more skeptical of this assumption and more willing to reject or violate these rules.
My response is similar to Nancy. I don't think it's fair to say that the Right smears becuase they have no morals. I think they smear becuase it fits their morals. The Left believes in an essential equality of man. Everyone should follow certain rules. The Right rejects this view. They represent a breed of individual exceptionalism. In one sense this might be a good thing in that it makes people feel special. But for some, especially or elites like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, this exceptionalism means that the rules do not apply to them, or at least not the same rules as for everyone else. THey live in a world of entitlement and privelege. For example, I don't think that Bush feels that his draft dodging in Vietnam was draft dodging. As the son of a powerful man it was merely his due to get a plum and safe assignment, and it was his due that he didn't have to show up for that assignment. So for men like Rove, who buy into the conservative exceptionalism, smearing is okay. They are an elite, whether this elite is based on piety, wealth, family, or intellectual accomplishment. For them the ordinary rules of poliical fair play do not apply. They should be in control because they are elites and this belief gives them a wider lattitude in which to conduct campaigns.
11 - Anthony Grande
"while over the past 30 the GOP has gotten more & more ... ruthless" by Nancy
So I guess blocking Bush nominees no matter what, supporting an insane women, blaming hurricanes on Bush, producing fake national guard documents and airing them on national t.v. are all not that roothless tactics then.
Republicans are just so rutheless I can't stand it (sarcasm). Please give some examples of ruthlessness on the part of conservatives.
12 - Reich Winger
No man could be all bad who could BASH BUSH.
13 - gonzo marx
to AG...count the 10 blocked judicial nominees...how many finally made it?..in 5 years
compare to over 200 federal court nominees held up under Slick Willie
know your facts, or stfu
plz?....k?.....tnx
Excelsior!
14 - Reich Winger
Poem for Anthony Grande (sung to the tune of, "Finger-Poppin' Time"):
It's Bush Bashin' time.
I say it's Bush Bashin' time.
Feels so goooooooooooood,
It's a real good time!
15 - Reich Winger
Yo Anthony Grande:
Know why Bush can't have any more kids?
Because his BALLS are in Baghdad.
16 - Reich Winger
Hey Anthony Grande,
Want to know why you're no American patriot? Because real American patriots don't attack their fellow Americans for being unpatriotic simply because they disagree with you. That's why you fail the patriot test and show yourself to be exactly what you are UN-American and UN-patriotic.
Reich Winger
17 - Michael G. Kelley
You all miss the point. Republicanism is a very small 10% of the body politic all controlled by a media under absolute control with any/all disadents throttled/or have access to publication revoked. The question is who is the single dissaplined entity. Who whips all editors in line. This entity has got to be called to terms.
18 - Michael G. Kelley
Three is nothing wrong with Bush that a good beating by a 120 # Irishman wouldn't cure. He is just a born coward that escaped his just reward.
19 - tomz
My fantasy: GW, Cheney, Rummy, Ashcroft, Wolfie, Pearle, and all the top hot shots. in orange jumpsuits, with sandbags over their heads, being led on dog leashes by Iraqi citizens to their mock trials in Guantanimo after which they would be summarily executed.
Okay, I can dream, can't I. It's more pleasurable than the Lottery!
20 - Michigan-Matt
"Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy"
Gosh, how would one describe this "story", most of the comments, or the mindset of the author if not as a personal attack?
You liberals are a laughing stock, marginalized minority. And it ain't changing anytime soon.