Most politicians are reasonably intelligent and are able to communicate smoothly their initiatives to the public at large—these survival skills are imperative to win the esteem of their constituents and the media. Strangely, though any policy disagreement among them is voiced through agonized comparisons, emotional demonization, partisan insinuations or flippant dismissals. In other words, most rhetoric takes the extreme forms of slowly bludgeoning with a Wiffle Bat or instantly shooting with a pistol—rare is the median thrust of the rapier.
Thus I have listed below three pointed and deliberate refutations of a particular person’s policies that, while not necessarily mocking or arrogant, served as “reality checks” to public figures. These are not mean-spirited (“Go fuck yourself.” –Dick Cheney to Senator Patrick Leahy) or intended for the simple sake of insult (“Poor George….He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” –Ann Richards speaking of presidential candidate George H.W. Bush) but rather used to assert the speaker’s power over an ideological inferior.
3.) Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.
The vice presidency through much of history has been an office largely devoid of any power except advisory—it is only in recent years that the Veep has become almost as scrutinized as the President for a variety of reasons (war mongering, shooting old men in the face, etc.). In that vein, vice presidential debates are often overshadowed. But in the 1988 election one of the most memorable moments came from the debate between Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (running mate for Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis) and Indiana Senator Dan Quayle (running mate for George H.W. Bush).
During the televised event, Tom Brokaw pointed out that the trend since WWII was for vice presidents to ascend to the presidency in the absence of an election and asked of Quayle’s abilities to lead if required to or elected to. Quayle had been criticized (and would be throughout his vice-presidency) for being an intellectual lightweight—railing against the TV character Murphy Brown, misspelling “potato” at an elementary school, saying “I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix.” Although he did work behind the scenes of the Bush presidency to further the conservative agenda, he was thought to be about as competent for the presidency as George W. Bush is thought to be competent for the presidency now—not at all.
Quayle had, throughout the campaign, been comparing himself to John F. Kennedy when his youth and inexperience were brought up for scrutiny. In response to Brokaw’s question, Quayle again asserted that he had as much experience as Kennedy. Bentsen carefully rebutted with, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
While the crowd reacted, Quayle stared sullenly off into space. Bentsen tried to continue and moderator Judy Woodruff turned around to silence the audience, which is when Quayle put on his best pouty face and gave Bentsen the stink eye, saying “That was really uncalled-for, Senator.” The final word was Bentsen’s: “You’re the one that was making the comparison, Senator [disparaging head roll while pronouncing the word]….And frankly I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well-taken.”
This was a great exchange because it shut down the sanctimonious practice of invoking a dead person’s credentials to justify the advancement of one’s own self or agenda. It eroded Quayle’s credibility and showed that he had no substance to back up his allegation (other than the childlike “nuh-uh!”) while Bentsen had the experience, judgment, and street cred to pronounce otherwise.
2.) We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.
At the G8 summit in summer 2006, Vladimir Putin deadpanned the above gem at a press conference after George W. Bush extolled the free press and freedom of religion in Iraq and expressed his support of any people who were trying to institute democratic reforms, particularly Russia. This exchange took place before the 2007 surge in Iraq (which, in addition to funneling 21,000 additional troops into the country, resulted in a change of tactics which contributed to the success that Republicans now cite), when civilian deaths peaked at 4,000 in the month of December.
The comment, while admittedly not coming from an American politician, was nevertheless a blow to the man who, upon the two leaders’ first meeting, said that had “looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul.” Bush tossed to Putin by saying “He can speak for himself,” which is in fact exactly what the Russian president did. Bush’s response was a mollifying “Just wait,” a slightly better reaction than “That was uncalled-for” but served the same purpose of making Putin look lucid and unafraid to imply failed leadership while Bush appeared to grasp at straws for a witty response rather than an informative one. While this was more of a friendly jab than a malignant criticism, it is sometimes more jarring when friends say “you’re wrong” then when enemies do.
1.) At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
After Joseph McCarthy’s speech before a ladies’ club in Wheeling, West Virginia in February 1950 during which he accused the State Department of harboring communists, the term “McCarthyism” has come to mean pursuing a cause by means of reckless fear mongering and disregard for ethics. The senator became chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations in 1953 and used the position to call hearings for suspected communists in the State Department, broadcasting and defense agencies, universities, and the military.
In 1954 his actions began to be publicized in an unflattering light. Popular news anchor Edward Murrow criticized McCarthy in a broadcast by arguing that dissent is not disloyalty and that McCarthy was exploiting fear of communism and working against due process. He was attacked in print journalism for writing letters to Time magazine’s advertisers saying “it is much more important to expose a liar, a crook or a traitor who is able to poison the streams of information flowing into a vast number of American homes than to expose an equally vicious crook, liar or traitor who has no magazine or newspaper outlet for his poison” after they ran a story critical of McCarthy.
The memorable anti-McCarthy quote came from the Army hearings of April 1954 in which McCarthy and his counsel Roy Cohn were arguing with the Army’s lawyers over threats to ruin Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens after he refused to privilege a McCarthy subordinate who had been drafted. McCarthy had promised to investigate the Army and so he did. Joseph Welch, lawyer for the Army, behooved Cohn that, if there were upwards of 130 stateside communists in vulnerable military areas as McCarthy insisted, he should establish FBI surveillance immediately rather than execute unnecessary and slanderous public investigations. McCarthy retorted that if Welch were concerned about the immediate need to protect against communists, he should not have hired a man named Fred Fischer as an attorney, who McCarthy accused as being involved with the “legal bulwark of the Communist Party.” Welch defended the integrity of Fisher and assaulted that of McCarthy and hoped to end the exchange by saying “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” The Senator attempted to press Welch further about Fisher, when Welch, clearly aggravated concluded his remarks with “I will not discuss it further. I will not ask Mr. Cohn any more questions. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness,” at which point the gallery applauded.
Needless to say, this brought a halt to McCarthy’s credibility with a reasoned and emotional appeal to McCarthy’s unreasonable bullying.
7/18
