HOME / ballot box: Politics and policy.

White-Collar Willie HortonsHow corporate scandal threatens the GOP.

By William SaletanPosted Monday, July 8, 2002, at 6:31 PM ET

Every once in a while, an issue comes along that allows one party or the other to recast a series of other issues, changing the public's perception of the essential difference between Democrats and Republicans. Such an issue is now emerging in the scandals at Enron, WorldCom, and other corporations. Democrats, who up to now have been the party of permissiveness, are trying to foist that label on Republicans.

RSS

For decades, Democrats have labored under the reputation of being the party of the counterculture. Republicans called Democrats the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion," while claiming God, patriotism, and law-and-order for themselves. Democrats were the party of the ACLU; Republicans were the party of cops. Democrats were the "mommy party"; Republicans were the "daddy party." Democrats were the party of weakness; Republicans were the party of strength.

Ronald Reagan projected military power and economic vitality. George H.W. Bush beat the "wimp factor" by making Michael Dukakis look soft on crime and defense and by turning the Pledge of Allegiance into a presidential campaign issue. The best Bill Clinton could do was wrestle the crime issue away from Republicans by supporting the death penalty, "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals," and putting "100,000 new cops on the beat." Even that triumph was purely defensive. In the wake of Sept. 11, the GOP has regained its advantage. Nobody thinks Democrats will stand or fight more firmly against terrorism than Republicans have.

Now come the corporate corruption scandals. Suddenly, the villains of the hour are the ones Democrats have consistently warned us about. The populist rhetoric that seemed so out of place in the 2000 election, when Al Gore railed against "powerful forces" who threatened "the people," has found its logical context.

On June 28, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., rose on the floor of the Senate and implicitly accused the GOP of fostering malfeasance at Enron, WorldCom, ImClone, and other companies. He poked Dick Cheney and George H. W. Bush in the eye by mentioning Global Crossing's collapse and Halliburton's exposure to "charges of improperly recording revenue." The root of these scandals, Daschle argued, was "a deregulatory, permissive atmosphere that has relied too much on corporate America to police itself. It is as if the line between right and wrong, legal and illegal, acceptable and unacceptable was so little enforced that it became blurred." It was time for the government to lay down the law on white-collar crime, said Daschle. "Self-policing is no replacement for a vigilant cop on the beat."

Daschle's speech signaled a change not only in the way Democrats will talk about the business scandals, but also in the context in which the larger issue of law and order will be debated. Willie Horton has given way to Arthur Andersen. If Democrats have their way, when voters hear words such as "permissiveness," "right and wrong," and "cops on the beat," they'll think of Enron, Army Secretary Thomas White, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sunday on Face the Nation, Daschle pounded these new mantras with impressive message discipline. Four times in three minutes, he blamed the business scandals on a "permissive" climate of deregulation. Twice, he called for "more cops on the beat" to catch and scare straight white-collar crooks. Three times, he demanded mobilization to "go after the bad actors." Five times, he urged the government to get "tougher" on corporate wrongdoers.

Daschle's choice of words has several purposes. First, it takes Democratic instincts that previously seemed lax and puts them in a context that makes them look vigilant. When Daschle urges "regulation" and "more resources" to fight sleazy accounting, it doesn't sound like the same old liberal profligacy. Second, the new rhetoric takes whole issues that used to be talked about in terms of compassion and makes them look like issues of toughness. When Daschle talks about pensions and retirement security in light of corporate malfeasance, he doesn't sound like a bleeding heart; he sounds like a crime fighter. Third, Daschle's language makes Republican policies that used to look tough on bureaucrats look soft on swindlers. On Face the Nation, he tweaked Bush by accusing his appointee, Harvey Pitt, of running a "kinder and gentler SEC."

In a press conference Monday afternoon, Bush pledged to "vigorously pursue people who break the law." In the days to come, he'll elaborate on that mission. But the shift from debating terrorism to debating corporate treachery is more than a change in the issue of the week. Bush and other Republicans aren't just being drawn into a new topic. They're being drawn into a whole new context that threatens their political standing across the board.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Follow him on Twitter here.

COMMENTS

Notes From the Fray Editor:

As the political fallout from various corporate scandals drifts slowly to earth, Ballot Box Fray prognosticators attempt to read the ashes of burnt Enron ethics manuals they bought on line. Who stands to gain? How much? Did anyone know this was going to happen? All this deep-thinking has made BB a kinder, gentler place. Well, slightly.

Notes From the Fray:

Listening to Mr. Daschle's blaming corporate irresponsibility on lack of regulatory resolve is a little like listening to the conservative Republicans blaming our other ills on the fact that the Ten Commandments are not posted in schools.

Neither major political party has much backbone when faced with standing up to big contributors. You could make a pretty good case that Bill Clinton was a more faithful free-market president than Bush the Younger. Clinton pretty much spread the laissez faire around, while Bush will manipulate regulations and enact protectionist tariffs for his friends, or for people who might vote for him.

As far as Democrats seriously regulating big business, let's cast our memories back to the freewheeling 1980s and the S&L scandal. Sure, Reagan was president, and Neil Bush ran Silverado, but the Democrats were slurping from the same trough. And the intervening 20 years haven't improved things much. For Daschle to work himself into a state of high moral dudgeon is amusing at best.

-- Lee

(To reply, click here.)

Daschle has found the right target and the right approach and if I'm a Republican, I'm hoping that it was a lucky shot and he doesn't realize that he's shooting at the powder magazine.

If Daschle knows what he's doing, on-message Democrats will attack the winner issues he hit on Sunday and avoid the loser issues he didn't.

Winner issues:

- The SEC as "cops on the beat." Saletan's right—this one is pure gold. In Bush's world, gov't regulators are worthless parasites who exist only to gum up the works whereby entrepreneurs create the wealth we all enjoy. They've been winning that battle largely because the issue was too abstract to get any real traction. Obviously that's all changed in a big way. Spinning regulators as heroic defenders of corporate accountability and integrity won't be a slam-dunk but it's not the obvious lost cause it was a year ago. This should be interesting.

- The culture of permissiveness. Speak out against police brutality, racial profiling, or draconian sentencing and you'll get spun into a soft-on-crime wimp. Democrats know precisely how this frustrating bit of verbal jujitsu works and they've got the bruises to prove it. Bush can't even say the word "regulation" without getting that mocking-the-pleas-of-the-condemned sneer in his voice. He doesn't have a tin ear--that issue played well--but he caught a bad break. Recent events have cast the regulatory cat-and-mouse game in an entirely different light, and Bush's vision of government parasites senselessly harassing honest corporations doesn't go down as easy as it used to.

Loser issues:

Who got the money? Democrats won't want to talk about this, and if they're smart, they won't get drawn into talking about it. The bad guys gave plenty to both sides, since a winner from the wrong party is still a more valuable friend than a loser from the right party. GOPers will play the moral equivalence card (both parties are to blame, nothing to see here, move along) to keep the spotlight off "the vision thing." This will be an interesting battle.

Which president is to blame? This is the moral equivalence card again, just a different suit. It doesn't matter a bit who was in office when so-and-so cooked the books, but it's fun to play "gotcha" and again, it serves to keep the discussion off the real issue. This will be another test of Dem discipline.

In Short:

GOP spin: "Bad stuff happened under Bush. Bad stuff happened under Clinton. The bad guys gave money to both parties. Most corporations are honest and shouldn't all be treated like criminals."

Dem spin: "Oversight: We're for it, they're against it. Most people in high-crime neighborhoods are honest, but that's still where you put the extra cops."

Advantage: Dems.

Neither party is good about standing up to big contributors, but Bush has made this a signature issue and the ground has just moved under his feet. Free trade can be jettisoned in a pinch (witness steel tariffs) but this is a core value for Bush. Not only is he stuck on the losing side of this issue, but he's probably by nature incapable of sensing just how big a loser it can be. I expect an O'Neill type "genius of capitalism" misfire in the coming months.

-- Laertes

(To reply, click here.)

Back in May, when Ralph Nader was on the BT, I observed that populism would be in for a serious revival if there were too many more of these Enron-type scandals. See, e.g.,(m=3475452). At the time I estimated that 6 or 7 more Enrons ought to be sufficient to align a portion of mainstream America with Nader's anticorporate views.

I still stand by that analysis. With the addition of WorldCom and ImClone to Enron's proud legacy, we're now at 3 Enrons and counting, and Daschle's new turn of rhetoric is right on schedule.

-- Thrasymachus

(To reply, click here.)

(7/9)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES