Slate's Bizbox
damned spot: Political ads dissected and explained.

I Constitutionalize Your Pain

By William Saletan and Chris Suellentrop
Posted Wednesday, July 19, 2000, at 3:00 AM ET

"Protect" was produced for the Democratic National Committee by Democratic Victory 2000, a group made up of Squier Knapp Dunn, Shrum Devine Donilon, and Carter Eskew. For a transcript of the ad, click here.

From: Chris Suellentrop

To: William Saletan

Click here to view this ad
Protect
56K | 100K
Download Windows Media Player
Click here to view this adThe genius of this ad, which endorses a constitutional amendment to protect victims' rights, is that it makes Al Gore look both compassionate and tough on crime. (Gore's campaign stop today in Memphis, Tenn., to promote the amendment achieved the same purpose.) Gore's dearest wish is that this election will mimic 1988, when Vice President George Bush demagogued Michael Dukakis to death on issues such as prison furloughs and flag burning. But since the public hasn't responded to Gore's angry rants about risky tax, foreign policy, and Social Security schemes, he (excuse me, the Democratic National Committee) is now releasing ads such as this one, in which he plays the "semigogue," a kinder, gentler demagogue.

As Jack Shafer pointed out four years ago, President Clinton is the nation's premier semigogue, appealing to our emotions to pass "therapeutic laws." Therapeutic laws, of which a victims' rights amendment is a prime example, are designed to make us feel good but not to really do anything. This ad shows Gore has learned from the master. He doesn't tell us what his proposed amendment will actually say. All he says is, "So, for example, if somebody has been a crime victim and the person who committed that crime is about to be released, they ought to be notified. If there's a trial they ought to have a right to speak to the jury. The people who are hurt by crime need to be heard."

Would Gore's amendment increase conviction rates? He doesn't say. Lengthen sentences? He doesn't tell us. Prevent crime? Who knows? All it will do is allow crime victims to be "heard." It's not just therapeutic. It's interactive. Victims' rights: the criminal-justice equivalent of "The Fray."

From: William Saletan

To: Chris Suellentrop

This is classic centrist symbolism. Eight years ago, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton declared, "I do want to say something to the fathers in this country who have chosen to abandon their children by neglecting their child support: Take responsibility for your children or we will force you to do so, because governments don't raise children, parents do—and you should." The delegates roared their approval, but the real targets and appreciators of that line were the millions of swing voters who had come to regard Democrats as soft on family values. Clinton's jolt of moral affirmation opened their minds to his candidacy. That's what Gore is doing here. He's tired of coddling "accused criminals." He's for "victims' rights."

What's striking, as you've pointed out, is the pure symbolism of the rhetoric. What, according to Gore, do "victims' rights" amount to? The right "to speak to the jury," "to be heard," and "to be notified"—in short, the right to express your feelings and to receive an after-the-fact courtesy. For all the talk of "guarantees" and "protection," there's no "guarantee" that your speech will carry any weight with the jury. And your right to be notified that your daughter's rapist is about to be released presumes that the release will happen whether you like it or not.

I wouldn't mind the gesture much if it were truly empty. But in this case, it carries a substantial price: It cheapens the nation's defining document. In this ad, Gore treats "constitutional amendment" as though it's just another impressive word, like "guarantee" or "protection." As he delivers each of the words "constitutional amendment," he pounds the air for emphasis, and the ad leaps through a snazzy audio-visual warp to the next scene. The transition is designed to make viewers remember those two words. The ad continues with that theme, ending with the phrase "The Gore Plan: Crime Victims' Bill of Rights" on the screen. Hey, if the original Bill of Rights was a good idea, why not another one? Patients' Bill of Rights, Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, whatever. It's all marketing.

That wasn't how the guys who wrote the Constitution saw it. I guess they were just naive.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. Chris Suellentrop, a former Slate staffer, writes "The Opinionator" for the New York Times.
Photograph of Al Gore on the Slate Table of Contents by Joe Giza/Reuters.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Response from The Fray:


I guess we should at least be comforted that Gore's ad isn't an attack and doesn't attempt to confuse us about an issue that's meaningful.

--Will

(To reply, click here.)


Gore's posturing in this instance is the worst kind because it goes farther than the two contributors to Slate imply. Anyone who thinks seriously about victims' rights should be able to understand the essential problem with the idea: the more articulate the victim, the greater the penalty afflicted on the accused. If a drifter is murdered without any family (and no-one to share their pain with the jury), is his death less deserving of punishment than, say, the death of a college co-ed with wealthy parents (who will surely have much to say about the light stolen out from under them by a ruthless killer)? Under the so-called "victims' rights" constitutional amendment, this would be the case. Such an amendment would run counter to the principle that all people should be judged as equally as possible under the law, and there would be no recourse because it would be part of our constitution. Ironic company indeed with the likes of the right to free speech, not mention the 13th and 14th amendments! Surely, Al Gore understands this, but, as Slate's commentary explains, he also understands that this ad makes him look tough on crime and compassionate, very charming qualities to the ever-thoughtful "swing voter". To hell with the Constitution and fairness, there's an election on the line.

--Jake Phillips

(To reply, click here.)


To Jake Phillips: Quite true, we have created special crimes (with extra law enforcement teams) for the rich victims. For example car jacking, which although already illegal as grand theft auto and armed robbery, tends to happen to rich folks at shopping malls. This gets press attention and helps us to forget the store and gas station robberies which occur much more frequently, but the victims are just minimum wage folks.

--Lynn Williams

(To reply, click here.)


Gore is way behind times with victim's rights. We already have victim's rights here in Texas. My mother was murdered and I was notified every time he filed anything, when he was moved to Huntsville, and when he died. The victim's assistance program sat with me in the courtroom throughout the trial and explained to me everything that was happening. When the trial was over I was able to say something to the court that would have been read every time he came up for parole. It is time for us to have more concern for the victim's and their families. When a crime takes place it isn't over when the incident is over. My mother has been dead for six years and I still can't see anyone that looks like her or her killer without getting physically sick. I would like to be able to think about my mother without crying. It would have been so much worse if he had not been in jail. At least I had the comfort of knowing that I would not see him. Other people need that same assurance. The victim will carry that fear for the rest of their lives. Penalties need to be swift and hard. Punishment should not be made to be enjoyable. After all, the victim's life is not enjoyable.

--Lois Ann Womack

(To reply, click here.)


Notwithstanding William Saletan's blatant irony, the framers of the constitution weren't naive--they hadn't any need to "market" their words. They were speaking to an audience ardently interested and most likely involved in some way with the fight to become a nation. Gore's ad might rely on hyperbolic language, but you can't deny that even that has very little effect on the vast majority of his bombarded and apathetic listeners. I don't disagree that this kind of language cheapens the nation's defining document, but I seriously doubt that will even be noticed by most of his target audience, more's the pity.

--Ruth Hadad

(To reply, click here.)


[Notes from The Fray: EF in a post on the Second Amendment argued that "the right to confront an attacker after the fact in court is vastly inferior to the right to defend against the attacker in the first place." And Stephen Skubinna objected that "The huge flaw in Gore's idea, even beyond the fact that it provides nothing, is the assumption that rights are granted by government. Wrong. Big, huge, massively, catastrophically wrong."]

(7/19)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Fiscal Drunkards, Dry Out
Ruth Marcus | Which candidate could lead us to economic sobriety?
Meyerson: Gods That FailedMilbank: Confidence Isn't Cheap