Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

That’s the tack here – a very old (sigh), very tired (double sigh) tack. But since it’s here, let’s make sure we recognize it for what it is, because once you do, you know they’re squirming and on the defense – and that signals prime time for attack.

The first thing you’ll notice is how simplistic and commonsense they are. That’s their beauty and reason for their effectiveness – especially when executed subtly and consistently. So please don’t think I’m attempting to ‘talk down’ to anyone here. Most political tactics are painfully simple – and if you’re looking for them, they’re equally as simple to spot. Thing is, most people would like to believe that we, as a ‘free’ nation, should be able to trust our ‘leadership’ and should thus not be required to waste our valuable time searching for such things. (triple sigh?) 

As you might expect, most tactics work their wonder only on those who are easily swayed or have yet to make up their minds on a particular issue. Thus, a person who normally seems unlikely to be influenced by such rhetoric in most circumstances, might find themselves vulnerable to tactical persuasion if they are particularly uncommitted on a given issue. That means most partisans are probably not the target of such tactical gobble-d-gook. Anyway, here are some of the tactics enmeshed in the Administration’s latest cry for help:  

1) Attach Derogatory Labels: Label a person or issue in such a way that few people would be inclined to like the person or endorse the issue. Few people will jump at the chance to support a voice that they perceive as ‘increasingly irrelevant’. Limbaugh is a master here – (e.g. "Feminazis", "Environmental whackos" and "Commie-Libs"). Labels such as "alarmist", "conspiracy theorist", "extremist" or "left/right winger" have long been used to discount those with a strong opinions or vision. 

2) Destroy Your Opponent's Ability to Fight -- not just their ability to win the argument, but rather their ability to execute an attack. In this case, the best defense is the destruction of their offense. In their assault on Carter’s influence in the marketplace of ideas, the Administration has attempted to strip him of his primary offensive weapon – his credibility (See #3) and position as elder statesman.  In the wild, when an animal is injured or frightened, it becomes even more savage and relentless in order to preserve its own survival. In politics it’s the same. If you defeat your opponent in an argument (or embarrass them with a hostile critique), they will proceed to attack you with even greater ferocity and increasingly robust assaults. This is why you must eliminate their ability to attack in the future. That is what the Bush Administration is trying to do to Carter. 

3) Establish Source Credibility, or Lack Thereof: As mentioned in #2, the administration’s path to de-fang Carter was through his credibility. If the public fails to see the ex president as a meaningfully credible source, then what he has to say matters little (and may even create the opposite effect for some).  

4) Distract Audience Members (i.e. The Public) From Thinking Deeply: (I call this the “Fox Effect” reflecting Fox News’ success in diminishing thoughtful news and information into thoughtless soundbites and vacuous infotainment.) Anyway, it goes like this -- Distract audience members from thinking deeply about what is said by making an issue of some other non-issue. The issue here is clearly the Bush Administration’s handling of foreign policy. The distraction is Carter’s “relevancy” – a debate that truly has nothing to do with the issue that the Bush administration does NOT want you to think about. And this leads nicely to tactic #5… 

5) Make the audience miss the point: When people fail to think deeply about something, it is not uncommon for them to miss the point – something the administration wants the public to do. The true point of the argument is Bush’s foreign policy fumbling – something they would rather not have in focus. So they lead away from it by intentionally "missing the point" – that Carter has no business criticizing Bush -- and leading others to do the same.  

Of course all these overlapping tactics are centered on allowing this administration to follow through with one thing – avoid discussing their foreign policy calamity and the grave effects that it has had on humanity and the world. More generally, I’m talking about the Bush Administration’s favorite tactic of all time…. 

Drum roll please… 

6) Never Discuss Anything For Which You are Called to Task: That’s right! Never discuss the actual thing for which you were called to task. If asked directly about something they wish not to talk about, they answer with a related but less volatile and perhaps more self-flattering topic or slant. Remember the run-up to the Iraq invasion? (Of course you do) When asked, "Do you plan to invade Iraq as revenge for the alleged assassination attempt on your father?" They responded with a monologue on weapons of mass destruction. When called to take responsibility for their never-ending stream of international malfeasance, they say, “Hey, the relevancy of this increasingly irrelevant person is highly relevant to the relevancy of this discussion, and therefore his comments have no relevance. Next Question.” Huh?  

The trick, says Nick Cohen, writer for the UK Guardian, “Create your own ethical standards and point out how rigidly you adhere to them. And if the people are really as dumb as you think, you may be President of the United States."

So that’s it for Tactical Monday. Please stay tuned for our next installment, “How Bush Hopes to Ensure Legacy by Increasing Own Relevance”