The Dirty Trick

[Bricker]

I think Karl Rove has perhaps the “best” reputation for being a dirty trickster. It may be exaggerated, factually; I just finished his book and he denies responsibility for the Carolina John McCain push-poll that I’ve always heard was his. (What’s the evidence for that, by the way?)

The Nixon white House was known for dirty tricks, too – Liddy’s book talks about “rat fucking” as the euphemism for their dirty tricks escapades, and details several that he was aware of.

If the Sherrod was planned to come out this way, it’s clearly a dirty trick: now a group of black farmers is demanding Tom Vilsack resign over his handling of the Sherrod incident.

Obviously they can’t call upon Andrew Breitbart to resign, but it’s interesting to me that the target of their wrath is the guy that got played and not the guy that did the playing. (Assuming you don’t credit the alternative explanation that Brietbart too was played…)

But this thread isn’t about this specific incident, but rather the genera of dirty tricks.

I’m not sure how to say this, except by analogy. When Aaron Spelling created shows, he was criticized by the pundits for the plethora of T&A shows he brought to the networks. He was told he should focus on quality, not cheap tricks like women in bikinis.

But the ratings poured in.

Hard to believe the pundits when the ratings were telling you different.

So, too, here. We seem to reward dirty tricksters, even though we piously claim their tactics are not appropriate.

I have deliberately mentioned Republicans, here, and not Democrats. That is not to say that Democrats don’t have dirty tricksters, too. I am hoping the debate isn’t: “Yes, well, just tell the Pubs to clean up THEIR act, and all will be well.”

Should we as a society work on penalizing dirty tricks more than we do? And how?

[Mr_Smashy]

Question: who is the left’s Breitbart? I thought about this for awhile, and the only answer I could come up with is Michael Moore. Then I thought that he’s more of a trickster than trying to expose tricks.

I ask because, from where I sit, the only way you can penalize the dirty tricks is to uncover the scheme before much damage gets done to the target. Often, there isn’t much time to do right before an election, and the American attention span for these things resembles a fly on crack, so the trickster never gets punished, so there’s no incentive to stop the attempts.

So you need more of those guys on both sides? Or more muscular partisan media (Fox on the right, MSNBC on the left) with investigative thoughts?

[Sage_Rat]

The way I see it:

1. Republicans expect strong, powerful Republican politicians to bend the rules to triumph. Real politick and all that.
2. Democrats are seen by the general public as being against rule bending.
3. Hypocrisy is seen as a bigger crime than shady dealings. A man on an ethics committee who gets found out for having perpetrated some act that goes against the ethics he preaches will get kicked out, whereas someone who committed a greater offence but never really opined either way on the topic, will get away free.

When Republicans play a dirty trick, it’s generally seen as being “for the country”. Iran-Contra may not have been legal, but it’s not like the President (or whoever) had okayed it as a ruse to get in a girl’s pants. Agree with it or not, it was undertaken for essentially noble purposes. Bush II’s approval of torture is the same. Probably illegal, but undertaken “for the country”. A good Republican does that sort of thing.

A Republican who preaches that homosexuality is bad and yet is found sleeping with men, that’s unacceptable. He’ll be out on the street regardless that he’s sleeping with men, not having them tortured and imprisoned for life without a proper trial – a far greater crime by any sane measure.

Democrats, on the other hand, aren’t generally elected on ethics platforms. It would seem like it’s hard for them to be hypocritical. But at the same time, they’re pegged by the general populace as being the goody two shoes. They can’t play dirty tricks and have it be acceptable because Democrats are de facto hippies and bleeding hearts. Playing hard ball is, itself, hypocrisy. And that is, of course, the biggest crime.

But of course, this is all nonsensical. The rules for play are that if you’re on the ethical team, you’re expected to be unethical, and if you’re on the unethical team you’re expected to be ethical, and if you fall afoul at any point you’ll be punished based on the public’s perception of you rather than on the crime.

The only saving grace is that this hasn’t been any different at any point in the last 200 years, and we’re still here and generally it’s all been uphill so far as the state of the nation went.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Bricker

It may be exaggerated, factually; I just finished his book and he denies responsibility for the Carolina John McCain push-poll that I’ve always heard was his. (What’s the evidence for that, by the way?)

I think its because it’s consistent with his prior acts; the push poll against Morales, and the personal attacks against Richards in the campaign.

[Mr.Moto]

@Sage_Rat

The way I see it:

1. Republicans expect strong, powerful Republican politicians to bend the rules to triumph. Real politick and all that.
2. Democrats are seen by the general public as being against rule bending.
3. Hypocrisy is seen as a bigger crime than shady dealings. A man on an ethics committee who gets found out for having perpetrated some act that goes against the ethics he preaches will get kicked out, whereas someone who committed a greater offence but never really opined either way on the topic, will get away free.

I’m not sure I agree with your statement. While you might be on the money with regard to your Republican examples, the fact is that Democrats have engaged in a rather breathtaking amount of corruption over these last few years, even if much of it is of a petty nature.

If Democrats are indeed the goody two-shoes party, it isn’t obvious from my perspective. Perhaps you have some cites?

To me, this is akin to the debate over negative campaigns. Not only will Americans say they hate negative campaigns while voting for negative campaigners - given the chance (like on message boards) they will say terrible things about the politicians themselves, unbidden. I’m not too worked up about it myself - this is as American as apple pie.

(By the way, Obama, Pelosi and Reid just hate apple pie.)

[Aji_de_Gallina]

So, no real answers to the question.
The thin that voting is surprisingly irrational in the sense that the large majority of people do not think about their votes that deeply analisisng and contrasting. For instance, there asre municipal election here in Peru, and for Lima, the two biggest candiates are a) Effective guy who also steal lots of money or b) Ineffective gal who won’t steal a penny but most assuredly does not know how to stop her guys from stealing. When your choices are those, dirty tricks work.
They work because they reinforce a preconception or it “gets” the candidate.

[Bricker]

@Mr_Smashy

Question: who is the left’s Breitbart? I thought about this for awhile, and the only answer I could come up with is Michael Moore. Then I thought that he’s more of a trickster than trying to expose tricks.

As much as I despise Moore, I agree he’s not exactly a fair comparison. As I’ve argued before, I think he’s similar to James O’Keefe: he makes videos that tell a very lopsided story. But that’s not the same as a dirty trick.

I ask because, from where I sit, the only way you can penalize the dirty tricks is to uncover the scheme before much damage gets done to the target. Often, there isn’t much time to do right before an election, and the American attention span for these things resembles a fly on crack, so the trickster never gets punished, so there’s no incentive to stop the attempts.

So you need more of those guys on both sides? Or more muscular partisan media (Fox on the right, MSNBC on the left) with investigative thoughts?

Or stronger libel laws? Or a repudiation of the “public figure” standard that makes it well-nigh impossible for a public figure to sue and win?

[Koxinga]

Well, when you set up a system of rules, there’s always the possibility of someone gaming the rules. No matter what the rules are or how they’re modified, someone’s going to be there to twist them to their advantage if they can. Outside of abandoning the rule of law, I don’t see much that can be done.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I have deliberately mentioned Republicans, here, and not Democrats. That is not to say that Democrats don’t have dirty tricksters, too.

Go ahead and name a few, then. It would actually strengthen your position.

I am hoping the debate isn’t: “Yes, well, just tell the Pubs to clean up THEIR act, and all will be well.”

If that’s what the facts point to, then why not?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

…I just finished his book and he denies responsibility for the Carolina John McCain push-poll that I’ve always heard was his. (What’s the evidence for that, by the way?)

I do not think there is any evidence that Rove masterminded that plan directly.

That said he was the campaign manager and the buck stops there. It seems hard to credit Rove with having so little control over the campaign that things like that fly below his radar. Even if someone else did it without Rove knowing ahead of time it is the system Rove set up which seems to allow such things with a wink and a nod that he can credibly say he knew nothing about. After it happens, if Rove was really so appalled by what was done, one would expect a sharp rebuke from Rove and a clear message sent to all campaign workers that the Bush campaign does not roll like that and all such polls (or ads or whatever) need to be vetted by his office first. To my knowledge no such rebuke was ever issued.

“He dominates a campaign,” a GOP colleague says of Karl Rove. “Nothing ever happens that he’s not aware of.”

<snip>

One of the few critics willing to speak for the record was conservative Tom Pauken, who regularly fought with Rove – and Bush – when he was Texas Republican Party chairman during Bush’s first term as governor. “Karl’s very capable and wants to be the next Lee Atwater,” Pauken says. “He’s very much what I would call a control freak.”

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm

That strike you as a guy whose campaign was so out of control that various campaign offices were winging it on their own?

[Bricker]

@Koxinga

Well, when you set up a system of rules, there’s always the possibility of someone gaming the rules. No matter what the rules are or how they’re modified, someone’s going to be there to twist them to their advantage if they can. Outside of abandoning the rule of law, I don’t see much that can be done.

When the dirty trick involves besmirching someone’s reputation, I’m arguing that strengthening libel laws would have a salutary effect.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

That strike you as a guy whose campaign was so out of control that various campaign offices were winging it on their own?

To the extent of running one push poll? Sure. Or it could have come from someone not part of any campaign, but who favored Bush and had the resources to do it. Who could Rove rebuke, if no one knew who did it?

[tomndebb]

[ Mod Note ]

The topic of the debate as posted in the OP could be stated “should we, (the U.S.?) take active steps to reduce dirty tricks in politics?” This might be undertaken with new laws, enforcement of existing laws, or a serious effort to change cultural acceptance (a la drinking and driving).

None of this has anything to do with turning this thread into one more pointless partisan ping pong match about whose party is cleaner or dirtier.

Knock off the questions about the parties and address the actual topic, please.

[ /Moderating ]

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

When the dirty trick involves besmirching someone’s reputation, I’m arguing that strengthening libel laws would have a salutary effect.

Generally I agree. I am rather amazed at the outright crap that gets reported that is patently false but nothing can be done about it.

That said it needs to be done with care. IIRC recently around here there was a thread talking about libel laws and how in other countries (Ireland I think) they are such that you cannot criticize a political figure as they will sue you no matter how fair the criticism.

On the whole though I think the libel laws could use more teeth. “Reckless disregard for the truth” should have some oomph behind it (which would cover Breitbart and FOX even if he/they were “played” as well).

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

@Whack-a-Mole

That strike you as a guy whose campaign was so out of control that various campaign offices were winging it on their own?

To the extent of running one push poll? Sure. Or it could have come from someone not part of any campaign, but who favored Bush and had the resources to do it. Who could Rove rebuke, if no one knew who did it?

He could issue a generic rebuke if they truly had no clue who did it (hard to believe). Just a message sent out that the Bush campaign does not support those tactics and those doing it are hurting (which Rove actually claimed the poll did) more than helping. If they want to see Bush elected they need to work closely with Rove’s office so they can stay on message. As I said I saw nothing of the sort issued by Rove. My sense of the guy is if he really was pissed about it heads would have rolled.

[ElvisL1ves]

tom, understanding the nature of a problem has everything to do with a discussion of how to respond to it.

Dirty tricks are used because they work, and they work because a significant number of voters let them work, and because too much of the media is too tame to investigate and report on them. There is no solution to be found in the legal system; it’s too slow to provide a response before Election Day, after which it no longer matters. What we need are better media and better citizens; nothing else will do.

[puddleglum]

The problem is what do you define as a dirty trick? As an example the push poll in the South Carolina never happened, yet McCain went around afterwards claiming to his supporters in the press that Bush committed a dirty and probably rascist act against him. Was that a dirty trick? A democrat in Maine illegally leaked records about Bush’s DUI days before the 2000 election. Was that a dirty trick or a legit new story? It seems to me that people want to blur the line between negative campaigning and dirty tricks. If people are too lazy to find out the truth and believe lies, then that is a price of democracy. It is very difficult to maintain a government that is better than the society that produced it.

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

tom, understanding the nature of a problem has everything to do with a discussion of how to respond to it.

Dirty tricks are used because they work, and they work because a significant number of voters let them work, and because too much of the media is too tame to investigate and report on them. There is no solution to be found in the legal system; it’s too slow to provide a response before Election Day, after which it no longer matters. What we need are better media and better citizens; nothing else will do.

I am aware of those points. I have watched the hand-wringing over “negative ads” for over forty-six years, along with the attendant polls showing that they give the best bang for the buck in elections even when the voters appear to know that they are often lies.

I merely note that the OP chose his own side of the political spectrum for examples of bad actions, (so that there would not be claims of partisan cherry picking of examples), then asked that the issue be debated, not the politics.

I am asking the same thing. If there is a way to reduce dirty tricks, then let’s address that rather than simply wandering around saying “if we ban the other side, the dirty tricks will go away.”

[Voyager]

It all depends on what the purpose of politics is. The Spelling analogy is not a good one, since the purpose of commercial television is to get eyeballs to the advertisements, and anything legal doing that is legitimate. If Spelling were trying to put bikinis on PBS it might be another story.

Is the purpose of politics to acquire personal power for you and yours, or to work for the best of the country? if it is the latter, then dirty tricks are immoral. If it is the former, they are easy to understand. I can see the argument that a given candidate or party is so sure they have THE answer that any activity to put them in power to act on their solution is legitimate. But that way lies totalitarianism. If the press wants to publish something that reduces the chances that your one true solution can be implemented, why not suppress them?
Corruption is different, in that it (and sex scandals) do not modify the policy choices that voters should make. Insults are different also. Someone who accuses Obama of being a socialist is a fool, and someone who believes him is a bigger fool. Forging a Socialist membership card is a different matter.

The reason I am no longer a Republican is precisely because the party is now all about trying to get power, and not about acting in the best interests of the country as a whole, and not re-examining their policies when their honestly held beliefs cause a disaster.

[Jackmannii]

How many states have made “push polls” illegal? New Hampshire has done so (the example here is of a Democrat accused of push polling). That kind of law sounds difficult to enforce.

While the most notorious dirty tricksters in modern U.S. political history are probably the Watergate crew working on behalf of Republicans, mention should also be made of the Democrats’ famous trickster, Dick Tuck (whose embarassments of Nixon fall more into the category of pranks than dirty tricks).