Political Rhetoric and its Limits

In the course of considering the extent to which political rhetoric must adapt itself to the exigencies of a volatile political atmosphere, Justin Katz did me the honor of linking to my "Shrub for a day" piece. If I've read him correctly, the substance of his critique of my post - wherein I offer a hypothetical answer or speech that President Bush would give vis-a-vis WMD and Iraq - is that we can hardly expect candor when one's opponents will shamelessly exploit (by magnifying) any concession, especially with respect to an issue that is so contentious.

I think Justin's point definitely has merit; every time Bush and his administration have disappointed me with equivocation and avoidance of an issue, I have attenuated my disapproval by thinking of extenuating circumstances along the same lines. But if a politician is to stand for anything, at some point he/she needs to make bold and show willingness to be raked over the coals. And here I recall a valuable observation by one of my mentors at college: the moment anything interesting is said, it's amenable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. There's little point in holding press conferences - which nominally aim at addressing questions of concern to the nation - if no serious effort is made to stake out a clear position.

It's true that to dodge, artfully, inconvenient queries is almost part of the job description of the politician. And of course there's the (important) truism that politics is the art of the possible. But in these difficult times I want - we need - a statesman, and one of the marks of that rara avis is to push the bounds of the possible (which often occurs when risks are taken). Still, if I didn't feel that Bush's practice of avoidance was "systemic" to his administration to some extent, over such important matters, I'd be inclined to view his performance regarding the MIA WMD more charitably. I just can't shake off the conviction that what's at stake deserves a better defense and accounting.

While there's probably no decisive answer to the question at hand - disclosure vs. legitimate obfuscation - it's worth recalling Kennedy's post-Bay-of-Pigs apology; and the fact that Presidents Nixon and Clinton were disgraced more by the lie than the offense. While I certainly know of nothing that implies a direct analogy between Bush and the latter, surely those examples show that it's more often lack of forthrightness which creates trouble for our political class.