The Democrats actually started to hit back at the Republicans two days ago on the Christmas bombing matter. The Politico story that I flagged the other morning, about the difference in the way the Democrats and the media treated Bush after the shoe-bomber incident and the way the GOP went after Obama and got the media to follow its lead over these last few days, seems to have had a pretty major impact.
One GOP member of Congress, Mike Conaway of Texas, was asked on MSNBC yesterday whether he was equally critical of Bush when Bush took six days – far more than Obama – to speak publicly about Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. And about whether he was critical of the fact that Reid was tried in a civilian court (some Republicans are demanding a military tribunal for Umar Abdulmutallab). This Conaway, whoever he is, bumbled his way through the interview.
Steve Benen had a good piece noting that since Obama became president, US forces have taken out or apprehended several key terrorist leaders, but that the White House hasn't called celebratory press conferences to draw conspicuous attention to them. Bush and Cheney, he avers, would make sure everyone knew about it.
I think this is true. And if true, why? Well, the obvious explanation that would occur to people is that the Republicans are more willing to use terrorism to score political points. I think this is true, too. But then we must ask in turn: why is this true?
I don't think it's merely that Republicans are more aggressively willing to politicize stuff, although they are that. But there's more. This is a layer of analysis we don't usually get to in politics, but this is really the heart of the matter, to me.
I believe it has to do with the governing psychologies of liberals and conservatives. The two groups have completely different moral systems – read this article, for example. It describes five foundational moral impulses found in all humans, in all societies, in different combinations:
• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.
• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.
• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.
• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for
human life.
• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.
Liberals care most about the first two, conservatives about the last three – I'd say especially the fourth. And terrorism is a mortal and existential threat to social order and human life. So conservatives are going to be more worked up about it. They're going to see the world – well, more like Dick Cheney sees the world.
And if that's how you see the world, then an incident like Christmas Day's freaks you out. And an incident like the capture or killing of a leading terrorist is a huge deal – one you are likely to trumpet. So it isn't just cynical political manipulation that makes conservative governments more likely to trumpet victories over terrorists. It's their moral world view.
And that's all fine. But here's where I believe the conservative view gets darker and destructive and anti-democratic.
In valuing social order during a historical moment of extreme (as they see it) social disorder, conservatives are willing to assert an unusual degree of control over the people. In such a circumstance, they don't want reasoning citizens. They want children-citizens, wards of the state, who look to the daddy-state for protection and preservation of the social order.
I am not saying this is necessarily cynical or malevolent on their part. It simply fits with the extremely high value they place on hierarchy and order, and with their idea of how to maintain both in society.
But, as we saw over the past eight years, it clashes mightily with democratic principles. In many ways the hardest job Obama and his people face is to discard the Cheney idea of order (which they undoubtedly reject morally) but still maintain enough order that America is not attacked.
That's a hard needle to thread, especially with our political system and culture stacked the way it is – it's much more amenable to the conservative interpretation of these matters, because it's easier to understand and communicate to others. So it's really no wonder that Obama's most disappointing area to liberals has been civil liberties. It's going to take him and his people some time to figure this balance out.
In the meantime, he should not be alarmist or try to play sheriff just because it looks better on cable. The Boston Globe put it well in an editorial yesterday:
[bq] President Obama's manner in responding to the attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was a statement in itself. He was unruffled, focused strictly on the facts, and conveyed his commitment to locating the plotters in clear, unmistakable language…
…Obama chose to concentrate on explaining exactly why the United States was using "every element of our national power'' to disrupt terrorists, rather than engage in largely symbolic vows of vengeance.
Americans may feel that anger, and some would opt for a president who channels their feelings more directly. But they're safer with Obama, who keeps the attention of the world where it should be: on rooting out Al Qaeda. [end bq]
Actually, we can't know if we're safer with Obama. Our safety has to do with a million factors, among which presidential decisions probably rank fairly low. What we do know is that he wants us to be grown-up citizens who aren't tugging at daddy's pant-leg whenever danger approaches. I notice his poll numbers haven't dipped in the wake of the GOP onslaught. Maybe America is ready for a different approach than Cheney's.