![[Rant Warning]](../../../../RantWarn.gif)
| LIES (AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM) A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right Al Franken New York: Dutton, 2003 |
Rating: 5.0 High |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-0-525-94764-6 | ||||
| ISBN 0-525-94764-7 | 377pp. | HC/BWI | $24.95 | |
Search engines are wonderful things. Their existence, and the fact that much of what is printed in America's daily newspapers (of whatever stripe) or spoken on its many news media broadcasts is transcribed into their commodious databases, enable a great deal of fact-checking to be done quite rapidly and efficiently. Lexis-Nexis, in particular, proved invaluable to the "TeamFranken" researchers, and Franken cites it frequently. I myself make frequent use of Google and other World Wide Web resources like dictionaries, as well as topic-specific sites.
Before I gush too much about the wonders of the WWW, though, I have to point out that plenty of fact-filled books have been written without its help. It just takes longer to do the research. The critical factors are the size of a project's research budget and the quality of its researchers. Franken and his team of researchers have done a good job (though not a perfect one). Lexis-Nexis transcripts and other resources helped them get the goods on several right-wing blowhards, trumping bluster with truth. This book has plenty of facts about ultra-conservative players1 to chortle over or to be outraged about. A few examples:
That said, I have to point out that the book gets a number of things wrong. Some examples of such errors (in no particular order):
Al Franken is a standup comedian, and a good one — well educated, with a keen sense of irony. As you might expect, therefore, the book is an enjoyable read. However, there are places where the humor (or what I think is supposed to be humor) falls flat. Perhaps the prime example is what he calls "Project Ignore". Taken literally, this ascribes to the Bush administration an active intent to derail any counter-terrorism efforts. I'm no fan of Bush; but I think this is going too far. My guess: Franken intends this as irony. Using some irony myself, I call it "stealth humor". And I say it occurs far too often.
About two-thirds of the way through the book, I think I figured out the reason such passages don't work: Franken tries to write like he talks in his standup routines. There, body language, tone of voice and facial expression get the message across. In the print medium, however, these additional cues are missing. The result is that certain passages seemed to be misstatements, mean-spirited, or both. (I list some of these in the Errata page.) I found this annoying, but would not call it a major defect. Another thing I didn't like is the way he sprinkles gutter language and gay jokes through the narrative. Perhaps he does this to parody or annoy the right-wingers. I'm all for that; but my feeling is that sticking closer to "the high road" would have been more effective.
Facts are pesky things. Their peskiness has two aspects. They are pesky to those who want or need to obfuscate the truth, and to those who want and need to respect it. The second aspect flows from the first. Someone like Bill O'Reilly, who needs to distort and deny, will shout and bluster and generally try to prevent those with differing interpretations from being heard. Therefore, someone like Al Franken, a respecter of truth, has to work doubly hard to tell a straight story. First he has to ascertain the facts; then he has to overcome opposition in order to present them to the O'Reillys of the world. And someone like me, who just wants to hear a straight story, has a lot more trouble to sort out the conflicting accounts. Q.E.D.: Peskiness all around.
One case in point is this matter of O'Reilly's background. He claims he grew up in Levittown, a working-class town on Long Island. Franken says it was Westbury, a more prosperous neighborhood a few miles away. The Washington Post article I mentioned supports Franken on this point, citing O'Reilly's mother Angela. On the matter of Miami vacations, Franken says on pages 73-74, "Mrs. O'Reilly proudly told the Washington Post that the family regularly took vacations in Florida, and that little Billy attended private school, a private college, and that their home was in the affluent suburb of Westbury, not blue-collar Levittown." Into the fray jumps Webmaster3 — the creator of a Web site called FrankenLies, whose purpose is to document every misstatement of fact in Franken's book. Webmaster — who apparently has his own axe to grind — picks up on the fact that the Post article never reported O'Reilly's mother said "the family regularly took vacations in Florida." Quite true; it was O'Reilly himself who said that particular thing. Leaving aside who said what, the essential facts about O'Reilly's background are all there: Home in Westbury; private school, private college, multiple vacations in Florida. Oh, and the Post reports O'Reilly's father's salary as $35,000. That's $92,000 in current dollars. Plainly, Bill O'Reilly's claim of a hardscrabble, working-class youth is pure myth. But Webmaster fastens on Franken's one error to imply that he gets the whole story wrong. So, yes, I think Webmaster has an axe to grind.
I mention all this because FrankenLies offers a handy way to check Franken's accuracy on certain points, and its own accuracy bears on matters of more import than where Bill O'Reilly grew up. One such matter is the alleged trashing of the White House by departing Clintonistas.
As I say, the story is a convoluted one. According to my current understanding, the sequence of events goes like this:
Let me rant this about that.
First, at any transition, some equipment damage is understandable; failures that might earlier have been repaired are lived with as the deadline gets close. Second, it's not unusual for the departing team members to leave mementos for their successors — who, if in the other party, can count on some of those mementos carrying a bite. I think I'm safe in saying that the Clinton/Gore-Bush/Cheney transition had a somewhat higher hostility index than most.
None of this is meant to condone any sort of theft or vandalism. But go back and look at the sequence of events again. Then consider an alternative explanation. That's what I've done, based on my readings about the Bush administration. And here's my take on the "vandal scandal".
Certain Republican congressmen, and operatives connected with the Bush administration, familiar with the "mementos" of transition from one political party to the other, see a chance for a parting shot at Clinton. How? By spreading rumors of Clintonista vandalism at the White House, and having the president officially take a high-minded stance — "we won't investigate; we're doing our jobs and moving on" — while letting someone else play the role of attack dog. The press will eat it up. (As they did.) If need be, some proof can be planted: offensive signs, tampered-with computer keyboards, "porn bombs". (The porn bombs, never precisely described, were a nice touch. Redolent with images of terrorist dirty bombs as well as smuttiness, they were well-calculated to arouse moral indignation.) It's an old trick, one that was already well-tested when Lederer and Burdick wrote in The Ugly American how Asian Communists put ipecac in the milk and then blamed the "round-eyes" for dispensing spoiled milk.5
OK, we have the opportunity: the chaos of transition. We have the motive: embarrass Clinton. We have the method: start rumors of Clintonista vandalism. What else is needed for this sort of plan? One thing is plausible deniability. In my view, that was easily achieved by having no documentation. Recall: No one in the White House, as outraged as they purportedly were, took any photographs of those offensive signs, or even wrote down an inventory of damaged equipment. This would have taken, what, four hours of work by one person? Nor did they bring in members of the press to witness the depredation. No, it was all verbal testimony. When questioned, staffers would say they kept mental notes or got together and made a verbal assessment. They could justify this because, as I mentioned, the top-level stance was to downplay the issue ("We want to move on".) At the same time, details were fed to selected members of the press on an off-the-record basis. Even so, they almost blew it with Air Force One. That plane is protected. If someone had been able to secretly loot it, the White House would have a far bigger problem than vandalism. Luckily for their plan, cooler heads prevailed and that part of the story was quietly dropped.
So, plausible deniability is in hand. The next requirement is to keep the story alive in the media. Those off-the-record reports were vital, of course. They made sure that someone would bring up the matter at a press conference. I think (and professional journalists agree) that Ari Fleischer played the starring role in this part of the plan. He coyly fielded the questions by repeating the official stance. Another reported step in the process was to have a White House official accost a Clinton aide at a funeral with what he said were pictures of the damage. (They showed offices filled with trash, said the Post, but no discernible damage.)
Meanwhile, Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) had the "attack dog" role, taking the stage on 29 January when he called for a GAO investigation. Barr, the first congressman to call for Clinton's impeachment, thus became the liason with investigators, placing the White House at a safe remove. The GAO told Barr at that time that a standard GSA inspection, just after Clinton's people left, had found no significant damage. Ungar, its director of physical infrastructure, asked the congressman for some sort of documentation. Barr, I am sure, promised to pass on the request to the White House. This bought the first installment of time.
Another milestone fell on 18 April, when Philip Larsen, a special assistant to the president, told the GAO in a letter that no list of damages could be found. Larsen told Ungar: "After investigation, we have located no such record. And our repair records do not contain information that would allow someone to determine the cause of the damage that is being repaired." The ball was now in Ungar's court, and he volleyed it back on 27 April, telling the White House that no evidence of significant damage could be found and he was dropping the investigation.
About a month after that, the White House did come up with a list of damages. On 4 June, the GAO reopened its investigation. That investigation took a year, cost $200,000, and produced the disappointing conclusions already mentioned. So what was achieved? The Republicans concocted a scandal that, after four months, backfired on them — but only with the press. For those four months, they had the general public's attention to a progression of news stories that portrayed the Clinton administration as sleazy trailer trash with no respect for the White House. When the final GAO report hit the headlines a year later, its findings were just far enough from "no damage" that they probably reinforced that image in the public mind. I'd say (and again the professional observers agree) that the president's folks got just what they wanted. And they got it at taxpayer expense.6
As a campaign tactic, this maneuver has a certain elegance. It achieved impressive results with little effort. I can admire it on that basis. At the same time, I find it morally reprehensible and strategically counterproductive. It's morally reprehensible because it was an attack on people who (in practical terms at least) lost an election that Bush (arguably at least) had already won — and because it was dishonest. It's strategically counterproductive for several reasons:
Some say negative campaigning doesn't work. I submit that the evidence shows it works enough of the time to be a fairly reliable technique. Unfortunately. But let's look at the larger picture. Few candidates are such low-lifes that their opponents have no recourse but negative campaign ads. In fact, the vast majority of candidates are intelligent, capable and principled people. Their entire lives have taught them that the keys to success in social activity, including politics, are cooperation and mutual respect.
Now, what are the keys to negative campaigning? They are five:
Such techniques may win elections. They also make sure the winners are less capable of the cooperation and mutual respect that are so necessary to success in the offices they've won. I further submit, therefore, that the more negative campaigning determines the outcome of American electoral contests, the less effective American government becomes. Recent events have shown that there are plenty of external challenges around. We Americans need the most effective government we can get. If we lower its effectiveness on purpose, we are shooting ourselves in the collective foot.
Now let's look at the Bush administration. There's a lot of ground to cover, but here I'll just list the lowlights as I see them. Some additional comments follow this chart.
| In the area of: | The Bush administration: |
|---|---|
| Economy | Dropped government-initiated lawsuits against corporate offenders (e.g. Microsoft) and condoned lax oversight by watchdog agencies like SEC. Followed policies that tended to benefit large corporations and high-income families while disadvantaging the poor and throwing millions of Americans out of work. Pushed through tax cuts while spending massive sums on Iraq and various domestic initiatives, turning a surplus into a huge budget deficit. |
| Education | Enacted programs that look good on paper but in effect lower the quality of education. Cut back on funding for preparatory or supplemental services like Head Start, after-school programs and SCHIP. |
| Environment | Weakened environmental protections generally, especially when this would benefit corporate contributors. Installed former industry lobbyists in many top positions at Interior Department and EPA. |
| Science and Medicine | Adopted the general practice of ignoring results of scientific studies when those called for actions that did not match administration ideology. Sometimes ordered reports altered before publication. Selected personnel on the basis of loyalty or political party rather than scientific expertise and integrity. Reduced the number of personnel in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and moved its director out of the White House. Continued the Republican tradition of opposing such health and medical practices as family planning, stem cell research, consensual euthanasia, doctor-prescribed marijuana, and full-option sex education. |
| Politicking in Office | Began term by concocting a spurious case of vandalism and blaming departing Clinton team. Subsequent GAO investigation cost $200,000, disclosed under $20,000 worth of damage, could not determine who was responsible. Generally tended to secrecy, holding few press conferences, developing important policies behind closed doors and refusing to name the participants. Intimidated reporters who asked inconvenient questions, or cut off their access. Conversely, passed information to friendly press to gauge public reaction, and for other purposes. In one case, leaked the name of a CIA operative, endangering her life as well as her career, because her husband publicly questioned the basis of president Bush's position that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear-bomb program. Made many appointments on ideological grounds, choosing arch-conservatives or fundamentalist Christians. |
| Law Enforcement and Civil Liberties | In wake of 9-11, passed stringent anti-terrorism laws that threatened civil liberties. Projected attitude that anyone who questioned these policies was unpatriotic. Detained thousands of foreign nationals in this country (and some American citizens) without charges, or as "material witnesses", holding them for months or years, often without telling their families. At the same time, ignored cases of gun possession by felons while vigorously pursuing and prosecuting people with small amounts of marijuana, often those who grew or used it under state permits for doctor-approved medical purposes. Prior to 9-11, overlooked evidence of in-country terrorist activity gathered by FBI field agents, and ignored warnings from them. |
| The War on Terror | Before 9-11, moved slowly on counter-terrorism planning. At the crisis, Bush was slow getting back to Washington. Afterward, imposed harsh measures. Kept vice president Cheney sequestered much of the time. Federalized all airport security personnel, but did not increase airport security enough to prevent incidents. Rushed the formation of Homeland Security Department, and politicized its employment rules. Resisted independent probes of intelligence agency performance as related to the terrorist attacks. |
| Military and Foreign Policy | Withdrew from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Put compliance with Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty under review. Directed Pentagon to review its nuclear policy. Pushed development of anti-missile technology, began deployment despite unimpressive results in trials. Requested funding to begin design of nuclear "bunker buster" weapons. Cut funding for support of former USSR nuclear weapons and materials against diversion. At United Nations, presented case for preemptive war on Iraq based on largely spurious evidence. Went ahead with invasion despite lack of UN approval. Committed fewer troops than military leaders requested. Neglected planning for postwar occupation, with variety of undesired results. After ousting Iraqi dictator, relied too much on aerial and artillery bombardment to achieve objectives, versus infantry or special forces. Denied reconstruction work to companies in nations that had voted against U.S. in UN Security Council. Continued to block UN involvement in Iraq. Squandered international goodwill flowing from 9-11, diminished U.S. influence abroad by unilateralist and sometimes arrogant policies. Withdrew diplomatic overtures to North Korea, a potentially more dangerous nation than Iraq, and antagonized its leader. |
Since I'm doing a lot of research right now into Bush administration policies, it's very tempting to stuff everything I'm finding into this rant and turn it into a major treatise. Fear not; I'll resist that temptation. Anyone who's interested can find the facts the same way I did — by Googling.
But I will wrap up, in a few paragraphs, my assessment of the total picture. Let me start with a disclaimer. I have never registered with a political party. I lean more toward the left; but no one- or two-word label can fairly describe my political outlook. My view on political labels is that they are for the intellectually disadvantaged. (There: My nod to political correctness.) The reason is that politics is not a one- or two-dimensional system; it has as many dimensions as there are issues. Feel free to label me if you must. Just don't expect me to conform to the pattern that label depicts.
The record of the Bush administration is not a total disaster. They put the Taliban to rout, and removed Saddam Hussein from power. Those are good things. I'm willing to believe that in general they want what's good for the country, and have some ability to achieve that, in some areas. As I said above, no candidate is unrelievedly bad.
But they've made many mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. A large percentage of them are due to the over-reliance on aerial bombardment — on heavy weapons in general. In many cases, it was using the proverbial sledgehammer to swat a fly. Notwithstanding the use of modern "smart weapons", this is asking for "collateral damage". They've also allowed warlords and other factions, including the Taliban, to resume operations in Afghanistan. In Iraq, they've alienated large portions of the population through poor post-occupation planning and acting on bad advice, as well as the aforementioned "collateral damage" — civilian casualties. Both those nations may turn out reasonably well; but it looks increasingly doubtful with each passing day. Meanwhile, the turmoil engenders hostility in Arab nations and swells the ranks of wahabbists. Incidents of terrorism have grown more numerous during the years Bush has been president. On the home front, it is at least arguable that warnings of imminent terrorist actions are made to distract attention from news unfavorable to the administration. Meanwhile the measures proposed to prevent intelligence failures like those that contributed to successful execution of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center buildings are controversial and contested, and evidence accumulates that funds designated for anti-terrorist infrastructure are not being spent as effectively as might be.
The administration has alienated many other nations with what's perceived as (and often is) their arrogant, go-it-alone attitude. Their political manipulation of federal science programs can only be counterproductive in the long term. On environmental protection, their record is very bleak; they've essentially invited the fox into the henhouse. Education is a tough call; the extra money they've put into it ought to do some good, but it may be a case of giving with the right hand and taking away with the left. Bush's performance as Texas governor, and the way educators7 and state governments are reacting now to No Child Left Behind don't bolster my confidence. Medicine is likewise a mixed bag; I like the African AIDS initiative and hope they follow through, but the doctrinaire opposition to family planning and effective sex education appalls me. With respect to stem cell research and related medical technologies, their policies make it likely that at least some valuable programs may go overseas.
Ashcroft's Justice Department started off badly, but may turn out reasonably well. Of course, credit for this will go largely to pressure from the Congress, and to a backlash against its inroads against civil liberties (most notably the long detention of thousands of people on dubious grounds), its uneven priorities (e.g. ignoring possession of guns by felons while pursuing medical marijuana users with massive resources) and, indirectly, the debacle at Abu Ghraib.
Energy policy is a mess; but then it has been for a long time. The Bush administration's gifts to big energy businesses, its focus on oil production (e.g. its push for drilling rights in the ANWR) and its neglect of conservation measures and energy alternatives are short-sighted policies. But, as I say, such policies have long been the status quo. I cannot therefore single out the current administration for extraordinarily severe criticism.
The economy, it seems, largely does what it's going to do and is not easily managed by the president. But I don't approve of most Bush economic policies. Neither do many experts on economics and fiscal policy. There is almost universal agreement, outside the administration, that cutting taxes as Bush wants to do while ramping up expenditures is unsound. In particular, expanding the federal deficit means less money for private lending, which leads to higher interest rates on those loans. Anyone who has watched the hand-wringing over any anticipated quarter-percent boost in the prime rate by Alan Greenspan will understand the import of that.
Finally, I wish they would drop the Christian evangelism. But they're not likely to do that. And I'm not likely to vote for them in November.
The alleged "trashing" of the White House and Air Force One by Clinton's transition team is old news. But for those interested, I've collected here some links to news accounts.
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.