How Gingrich/Giuliani Sabotaged Civic Debate

This past week, America saw two familiar figures impose violent rhetoric into the Presidential debate on behalf of John McCain: Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. It was a textbook example of the right-wing effort to use violent language not just to distract the public, but to undermine the attempt by citizens to have a pragmatic discussion with an eye towards solving problems.

Trying To Have a Real Debate: A Nation of Laws?
On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court restored Habeas Corpus to detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and in so doing, the courts initiated an important conversation about what it means for the United States to be a Democracy based on a system of laws. Within that ruling itself, Justice Scalia invited those who opposed the ruling to use violent rhetoric by stating that the court's decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" (link).

Within days of that ruling, Gingrich and Giuliani followed Scalia's lead, pushed their way into the right-wing broadcast, and began to argue that liberal views on Habeas Corpus would kill Americans.

The basic context pf the Habeas Ruling was this:

1. America is a nation of laws, the fundamental basis of which is the right to know why and protest one's incarceration by the state.
2. Habeas has been revoked during past wars when it was feared that enemies to the United States were living among the general population and needed to be removed without delay (Civil War, WWII).
3. In past cases, the court restored Habeas when the war ended. In this case, Habeas has been restored on the idea the initial perceived 'war' requiring Habeas suspension has since become a metaphorical 'war' used to maintain certain policies.

Now, what Americans heard in this historic court ruling is a key civic question:

How long can a nation of laws endure if the fundamental right on which all democracies are based has been abrogated?

The answer is something to this effect:

So long as that nation of laws is at war.

There was a deliberative purpose to the Supreme Court ruling, in other words, which relates to that crucial question for our democracy about the length, nature, legality, and necessity of f what has been presented to the public by the Bush Administration and the McCain campaign as a 'war' on many fronts without end. And in the wake of the court's ruling, Americans were invited to debate that issue: to what extent we are at war, when it began, how it will end, has it already ended, and so forth.

This is the point at which Gingrich and Giuliani entered onto the scene and used violent rhetoric to undermine the very process of debating this crucial issue.

On Sunday June 15, Gingrich went on Face The Nation and argued that Barack Obama's lauding of the restoration of Habeas could bring about the nuclear annihilation of American city:

He applauded this court decision. This court decision is a disaster, which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you're prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers - it was a 5-4 decision. Five lawyers had decided that the Supreme Court counts more than the Congress and the president combined in national security. That ought to be a principled argument between McCain and Obama, about whether or not you're prepared to allow any random nut-case district judge, who has no knowledge of national security, to set the rules for terrorists (N. Gingrich, Face The Nation, Jun 15, 2008)

So there it is: Days after the Supreme court restores Habeas, as Americans debate the civic meaning of this ruling, Newt Gingrich stands up and tells us that the ruling could bring about thousands if not millions of American deaths by terrorists, and that the Democratic candidate for President welcomes this. If ever there was a clear case of a right-wing pundit imposing violent rhetoric on an issue to undermine meaningful debate, that was it.

Next up, Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11-9/11-and-did-I-mention-9/11 himself.

Giuliani joined Gingrich in the effort to derail the civic debate about Habeas by criticizing Obama a few days after Gingrich's CBS spot that. Speaking publicly for the first time in months, Giuliani claimed that Obama's position on fighting terrorism--which advocates police work to track down, arrest, and try terrorists--would exposed America to terrorists seeking to destroy our way of life and, effectively, result in more deaths.

Of course, in criticizing him, Giuliani lied about Obama's position on national security, but that is not the key point. The real issue here is that Giuliani joined Gingrich in undermining the Habeas Corpus debate by yanking the media into a distracting accusation that the Democratic candidate's policies will lead to the horrific death of Americans at the hands of our most violent enemies.

That, America, was right-wing violent rhetoric in action.

Old Distractions Rehashed
The first key point to note here is that in this new episode, both Gingrich and Giuliani recycled violent arguments published in their best-selling books (Giuliani's Leadership, Gingrich's Winning the Future) in which they lay out the basic tenets of their 'Democratic-anti-terrorism-policy-will-bring-the-destruction-of-America' argument. Second, broadcast outlets have a long record of amplifying these arguments through Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, FOX News affiliates news, and more recently, Joe Scarborough. Third, these candidates ran high-profile Presidential bids that were rejected by the American public (Gingrich's was exploratory, Giuliani was the once-and-future front-runner). And fourth, in response to this argument, Democratic politicians typically become nervous that they will be branded 'weak on defense,' putting out more and more bellicose arguments, rather than sticking to the topic at hand.

So, there was the violent rhetoric trajectory right in front of us, put in motion this week by the same high-profile players that have been using it effectively since 2001. A key civic issue enters the public arena. High-profile right-wing pundits reframe the issue in violent terms. The media and Democratic leaders accept the frame rather than dismissing it. Meaningful civic debate on the topic dissipates.

The steps of this episode can be summed up like this:

1) Habeas corpus restored - American debates a 'nation of laws'
2) Gingrich/Giuliani proclaim that Democrats hasten destruction of America
3) Major news outlets echo this argument
4) Democrats respond by saying they are "strong on defense"

But let's step back for a minute and see if Step 3 and 4 really went down like this--let's see if the media and the Democrats have learned something since 2006.

On June 18th's Morning Joe, Joe Scarbarough had as a guest Jonathan Capehart, editorial writer for The Washington Post, to discuss the Habeas decision among other things. Showing that the media would not be distracted by Gingrich and Giuliani--and despite Scarborough's effort to amplify the violent rhetoric--Capehart focused the interview on the actual topic Americans should be discussing. Asked by Scarborough if the court ruling made America less safe in the face of terrorism, Capehart emphasized the key civic question the restoration of habeas is about Americans' belief that we are and should be a nation of laws. Bravo, Jonathan Capehart. Yes indeed, it seems the some key figures in the media have seen what the likes of Gingrich and Giuliani are doing, and now refuse to be a part of it.

But what about the Democratic Party? Had they figured out what Gingrich and Giuliani were doing?

Right after Capehart's spot on Morning Joe, Susan Rice, an Obama campaign Foreign Policy advisor, came into the studio for an interview. Susan Rice explained that the McCain/Bush approach to terrorism was not actually strong because it failed to catch Osama Bin Laden, and that a return to a combination of police and foreign intelligence building to fight terrorism would be a more effective way to protect the nation.

Well argued, Susan Rice. But! The one point she needed to hit out of the park was not about Democrats being stronger than Republicans on defense. She needed to focus the debate on the key issue that Jonathan Capehart raised: that Americans' want to discuss that we are 'a nation of laws' and the Habeaus ruling focused the civic debate on this issue. Why did Obama's adviser not make this point as clearly as she needed to?

At a fundamental level it does not seem that the Obama campaign--or the Democrats in general, for that matter, truly believe (yet) that right-wing pundits use violent arguments to tie up the debate. It is more likely that Democrats still think the right is using 'fear'--a much more vague and hard to define concept which leads communications strategists to try to push back with 'strength' instead of keeping the discussion in a more productive, more meaningful frame (e.g., 'a nation of laws'). As a result, Susan Rice--as deft as she was--nonetheless left the debate straddling two issues, not quite wrestling control back from Giuliani and Gingrich who played the perfect Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

What the debate needed, and still needs, is a high-profile Democrat assert the very point that Jonathan Capehart made (a point, incidentally, that can also be found in Chapters 2 and 8 of Outright Barbarous): (1) We are a nation of laws and (2) we protect the nation from terrorism (and other violent threats) by tracking down chains of responsibility.

When the debate is approached that way, the debate stays grounded in the very topic the nation wants to discuss, and stays focused on the problems Americans seek to solve.

In this case, one has to conclude that the media is more aware than the Democratic Party as to how the right is using violent rhetoric to undermine the debate--an effort which undermines the work of journalists and candidates alike.

Comments

[bigfated]

It is hard to believe that anyone out there even listens to the Newt anymore----let alone Repugnants. He is.....as much as Bush...the cause of the rapid decline of ther GOP---(for generations, I hope)---and as for Rudy 9/11? He is certainly the most discredited politician on the scene---(other than Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Addington, Wolfowitz, Rove....and a few thousand other right wing whackos) and showed his worth as a candidate. His "Florida" strategy was really brilliant, No? And his pushing his criminal buddy, Kerik, for head of Homeland Security....and his total failure to protect New York from an attack the Repugnants were clearly warned was coming----makes him complicit----along with the Bush Crime Cartel....in mass murder. Really great spokespersons for Sen. John McBush! UGH!

[research]

Conservatives=GOP=BushCO=robber barons=Fascists

Why are you surprised?

Cheney said " We going to have to be a nation of men, not laws"

[moreupnorth]

I find this statement by Mr. Gingrich "...random nut-case district judge..." disturbing. I thought by definition the Supreme Court was not a district court but a federal one and that it contained 9 judges and not just 1. It seems he has lost touch with reality along with the Republican party.

[TomR]

----
This court decision is a disaster, which could cost us a city. - Newt Gingrich
----

Interesting that Newt would bring up "losing a city" as a frame. Reminds us all of how we lost New Orleans due to Bush administration incompetency. And weren't Bush and McCain eating birthday cake during Katrina? All kinds of wonderful frames. Well played Newt.

----
At a fundamental level it does not seem that the Obama campaign--or the Democrats in general, for that matter, truly believe (yet) that right-wing pundits use violent arguments to tie up the debate. It is more likely that Democrats still think the right is using 'fear'--a much more vague and hard to define concept...
----

Then please allow me. This concept is a distorted thinking pattern known as Catastrophizing. It's when a person takes the most extreme possible outcome, not matter how remote or unlikely, and uses it as the basis for his/her decision-making.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2007/what-is-catastrophizing/

Catastrophizing is mentally unhealthy in two ways. First, it distorts a person's perception of reality away from the truth. Second, by presenting the world in stark, black and white terms, it makes it easier to manipulate others into doing the bidding of the irrational person. Manipulation is a form of emotional abuse.

Whenever Republicans engage in this irrational violent rhetoric, they are attempting to emotionally abuse the American people.

- Tom

[AbstractImp]

Thank you very much for this.

The rats of Rove have been at this game for a decade, having learned from Norquist, Atwater, Nixon, McCarthy, all the way back to Dewey. Ever look in his eyes?

In America, "republican integrity" is the lowest form of barbarism.

For those horrified by the extent to which these people will go, such as we see every week in the RFK DeMelle article on otherwise missed news

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-brendan-demelle/unearthed-news-of-the-wee_b_108316.html

you must keep in mind that all these disgusting practices are just tactics.

The game is keeping power, keeping control of the tax treasury, so they can funnel all that tax revenue to themselves and their friends. That is the only game.

And since the population hit 300 million, there's a lot of revenue to steal every year, and to keep out of the projects of the engineers, the lesson plans of teachers, and the mouths of the poor.

So the next time you watch a puffed up republican castigating someone elses character, you can pretty much guess that he is playing a role in the vast army of morons that is undermining American society at every level, and that somewhere behind him, more money is being stolen.

A woman once said to me, in complete honesty, "Oh, I am a nurse, I could never be a republican!"

That says it all.

[BARRISTER]

Has the newt grincg forgotten that it was 5 LAWYERS WHO ILLEGALLY IMPOSED BUSH ON THE WORLD?????

[Bettysdad]

How much time are we going to give Republicans before we force them to admit they haven't a clue?

McCain said "just weeks or months" before this ruling kills people. Others have said similar stupidities.

Do we give them 2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months,a year, 2 years, forever?

[starboymikey]

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

-Benjamin Franklin

What else is there to say?

[RRonin]

How about: "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."

-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Straight from the NeoCON playbook!

[closerthanuthink]

RRonin and starboymikey...I comend you both; thank you!! RRonin, you should have compiled a list of "truths repeated and repeated and repeated and..."...and in that vein I start with the most recent:
1) China (and the Dutch and the Indians - that's REally new - are drilling for oil of the coast of Florida!"
2) ??? (any suggestions????)

[cynubie]

I can only thank a higher power that 5 of the justices could honestly look at the Stalinist type show trials about to begin in Gitmo and realize they were not in keeping with US, International, or any possible truth any Patriotic American might hold as self-evident. The mere prospect of a reasonable debate must really terrify those with the most to hide; to the list of quoteables, let us add the great bard, "He doth protest to much!"

[MajorKong]

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
- James Madison

[VillyVal]

I believe, without proof, that the elements of good argument can be TAUGHT and learned by any high school graduate. My theory is that once you put into the public discourse some fairly straightforward expectations of what everyone who puts their fingers on a keyboard should know how to do, those expectations could --just like gossip, rumors, and lies-- could spread like a virus, gradually raising the quality of debate.

Jeffrey Feldman is not the only person among us who can do this sort of analysis. Al Gore's "Assault on Reason" is a great place to start. MediaMatters shovels the Augean stables on a daily basis. All it would take, I believe without proof, is more articles in THIS vein. We just have to want it and honor it and ask for it. Of course, I can't prove that.

[janvoght]

absolute power , or as some like to refer to it "presidential privilege", corrupts absolutely! the dis-service the president did our nation to exercise his so called "presidential privilege" is far reaching...but in this case it shows how that corrupt attitude spreads to such "public servants" as newt, and rudy! they all feel for some reason that they are above the law, and the fact that they are supposed to be working for us "the people of the USA" means nothing to them, when they are called upon to uphold the constitution, or the basic laws that make this country a leader internationally. i would ask these shortsighted "public servants" to broaden their visions, and look at a bigger picture, with ALL DUE RESPECT.
obama '08 & 2012

[Durango]

It is curious isn't it, that the greatest loss of life from terrorist attacks happened not during Democratic Administrations but during the office of George W. Bush-REPUBLICAN.

Take your pick, either 9/11 or the Iraqi War has had the greatest number of casualties resulting from terrorists.

One 9/11 was a crime of omission. Bush and company ignored many and repeated warnings. Theywere more concerned about downed US spy plane over China than the very real risk of terrorism.

Bill Clinton did not make that mistake. He and his people knew full well the threat Bin Ladin posed. All it would have taken was increased airport security to thwart those attacks.

Iraq is worse as a crime of commission. Iraq was no threat but George W had to have his war in order to be a "Great Wartime President."

Yet we have these reptiles like Gingrich and Guilliani crawl out from under their rocks to make, face it there is no better characterization, insane statements.

Just what does it take to become a disgrace if you are a stupid Republican like Gingritch and Gulliani?

[appleknocker]

The logic of Scalia and the two G's would be hilarious if weren't taken seriously by so many. Suppose the Court overruled a law banning smoking or drinking or unprotected sex or driving automobiles. Could it not be argued that that decision "will cause the death of Americans"?

I'm too lazy to do the research, but I'll wager that some of the Court's decisions upholding the rights of business against workers and consumers have had that very effect, with no audible protests from the right.

[Incredulous]

LMFAO!!!

Yes, and dying can save your life!

And getting divorced can save your marriage!

And black is white, and up is down, and left is right, and right is wrong!

So CLEARLY, adhering to the law and the Constitution will kill you!!!

This would be hilarious, except for the fact that stupid Americans lap this shit up like it was warm milk!

[davidpeace]

Does newton actually think that any of the current political prisoners in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, or who knows how many black sites, will actually be able to acquire a nuclear weapon and bring to the US to detonate? Amy Goodman interviewed a psychiatrist (psychologist?) who essentially said that these guys, after the torture they had to endure (sorry, "enhanced interrogation") are mental basket cases. Does newt really think that osama would even trust one of them after having been locked up for so long and not be even a bit suspicious that they might have been re-programmed, beyond destroying their mind? Osama may or may not actually be living in a cave, but let's face it, he isn't stupid.

[jqcitizen]

Want to hear the deafening sound of silence?

Just wait for former US Attorneys, such as Rudy Giuliani or Joe deGeneva (including his wife Victoria Toesing, former Dep. Atty, Gen.), to condemn the practice of firing good US Attorneys because they fail to do what some political lunatic wants them to do.

David Inglesias and 7 other US Attorneys got 'Fired' by goofballs and Newt knows who they are. And he is not prone to admitting there is such a thing as corruption in DC.

[AdobePhsyko]

"5 LAWYERS" ?
Excuse Me NEWT . That's The Supreme Court of The United States you are talking about.
Why does this Slimeball even get on TV ?
He isn't even an elected official anymore. He Is A NOBODY