- The Bush Administration has taken political spin to a
level undreamed of even by Bill Clinton. In two of the most critical issues
facing the country, the White House is substituting demagoguery for information.
Example One: Its response to questions about what the Administration knew
prior to September 11 about possible terrorist attacks. Example Two: Team
Bush's reaction to new criticism of its plan to create private Social Security
accounts.
-
- When pressed, all pols love to dip into their bag of
tricks. Three favorite ways to avoid having to confront a serious issue
are truly Orwellian: Deny a charge that was never actually made, accuse
your critics of partisanship or even disloyalty, and change the subject.
These days, the spin machine is working overtime.
-
- HEDGING AND FUDGING. Take
the Administration's carefully scripted insistence that the President had
no specific advance information about an Osama bin Laden-orchestrated attack
in the U.S. And consider the White House's equally well-rehearsed insistence
that Social Security private accounts would not endanger current retirees'
benefits. Remember those two words -- "specific" and "current."
In both cases, Bush aides are denying allegations that no serious critics
ever made.
-
- For instance, following the attacks of September 11,
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said on Sept. 12, "We had
no specific information..." On the same day, Secretary of State Colin
Powell said, "I have not seen any evidence that there was a specific
signal that we missed." On Sept. 16, Vice-President Dick Cheney said
there was "no specific threat." It was all carefully choreographed
around that word "specific."
-
- The White House argument: No one gave George Bush advance
warning that terrorists would fly a plane into the World Trade Center on
the morning of September 11. Thus, there's no need for further inquiry.
-
- It's the same with Social Security. In recent days, Democrats
renewed their criticism of Bush's plan to create private investment accounts
as a partial replacement for the traditional retirement program. Their
objection: The accounts would result in cuts in basic Social Security benefits.
-
- RED HERRINGS. Well, of course
they will -- for future retirees. But, in theory, young workers will be
able to invest those funds and more than make up for the loss of traditional
benefits. And the nation needs to have an important conversation about
those trade-offs. Instead, the White House has ducked the serious debate
by focusing on nonexistent threats to today's seniors and blasting critics
for alleging that private accounts would endanger the benefits of current
retirees.
-
- The second technique is even simpler. Attack your opponents'
motives. On Social Security, Bush allies charged that critics of private
accounts are out to frighten seniors. In the September 11 controversy,
the charges are even more troubling. There, top White House officials came
very close to accusing members of Congress of disloyalty for questioning
what the President knew and when he knew it. Such suggestions, warned Vice-President
Dick Cheney are "thoroughly irresponsible...in a time of war."
-
- If you read what lawmakers actually said following revelations
of early (and of course, nonspecific) warnings of a terrorist threat, their
remarks seem pretty timid. For instance, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle
(D-S.D.) was singled out for criticism. His "irresponsible" question:
"Why did it take eight months for us to receive this information?"
That doesn't exactly make him Tokyo Rose. Yet, the White House has tried
to portray such milquetoast questions as unpatriotic partisan attacks.
-
- SHIFTING GROUND. The third
technique: Change the subject. When it became clear the White House was
getting nowhere with its private-account scheme, the Administration began
shifting the debate to another issue of great interest to seniors -- Medicare.
And as things got sticky about pre-September 11 terrorism warnings, the
White House put out the word that a new attack is in the works. There's
no better way to distract journalists from an old story than to throw them
a new one to chew on.
-
- All of this is, of course, politics. Clinton was a master
at it. So was Ronald Reagan. And the Bush White House isn't entirely wrong
when it questions the motives of some Democratic critics. But the country
needs to talk about what happened before September 11. And about the critical
trade-offs required to fix Social Security. Issues such as these are too
important for pols to substitute spin for facts.
- ___
-
- Gleckman is a senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's
Washington bureau. Follow his views every Tuesday in Washington Watch,
only on
-
- Edited by Douglas Harbrecht
-
- Copyright 2000-2002, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
All rights reserved.
-
- http://businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2002/nf20020521_0817.htm
|
