I would like your help with a blog post.
This is a kind of RFP, that is a Request For Post. Let me explain.
This blog has attempted to explore strategy, messaging, and campaign style and to do so looking as objectively as possible on craftsmanship and skill, not on merit from my point of view. My effort for objectivity has helped me see the deftness and appeal of candidates I don't expect to support as well as the problems in the campaigns of my preferred candidate.
So here is the little exercise: What, if anything, should Democrats do with the bit of Cruz history that as Solicitor General in Texas he defended on behalf of Texas the Texas law that made the sale of "obscene devices" that are "designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." That is, they had a law outlawing the sale of dildos in Texas, although not their private use of them by consumers.
Cruz said the law was within the purview of a state to regulate safety and public morality and that even if the law were "uncommonly silly" (as he described it out of court) it was within the right of Texas to outlaw things that promoted immorality and the courts should leave this to legislatures and the democratic process to resolve whether it was reasonable or not as a law. The plaintiff group argued that this was deep over-reach into the zone of personal privacy found in the 14th Amendment and that the court must decide that no legislature can create a law that invades that Constitutional protection. The Appeals Court agreed with the plaintiff, not Texas.
I think I summarized this accurately, but in any case my primary interest is in the politics of it, not the law of it.
Here are links to two articles which describe the issue:
In an environment in which the opponent's record is used as a weapon to create fear or disgust or derision, and in which guilt by association is universal unless it is vigorously denied and condemned, what should Democrats do and what should Cruz do? For example, Trump is not a Ku Klux Clan member. But his hesitation instantly to condemn David Duke and the Klan was argued to be equivalent of support. Hillary Clinton's standing near Bill DeBlasio when he made reference to "CP time" in a stupid joke was argued to be proof of her anti-black racism. People are put into political traps because the only way to escape the charge would be for Trump strongly to condemn the Ku Klux Klan and u disavow them (which he did) or for Hillary strongly to condemn the joke as an outrage of overt racism voiced by a person she now utterly rejects (which she could not and did not do).
 |
| A useful point of attack |
Politicians get tagged with things that can be attributed to them, either by association or by artful and intentional mis-reading of what they said, especially when it fits a narrative the opposition is trying to build. An example in 2012 was Obama's awkwardly worded reference to business people being beneficiaries of the American military, our roads, our educational systems, etc. It fit a narrative the GOP campaign wanted to project: Obama doesn't like or appreciate self reliant businesspeople.
The Democratic message game would be either to require Cruz fully to own and endorse the Texas law, saying that vibrator devices are a moral scourge, or to criticize Texas for making such a law, or to attempt a lawyerly fine line of saying he was doing his job which looks to the public like lawyerly hypocritical mealy mouth waffling. Democrats charging that this is yet another example of Republican Big Government Bedroom Snooping associated with their meddling in women's reproductive freedom makes the charge part of a bigger picture of GOP culture war.
 |
| Bad Headline for Cruz |
Plus it forces Cruz to try to explain dildos, which is the equivalent of a politician putting on a big silly hat of some kind--a sure-fire mistake. Any sound bite with Cruz saying "stimulation of genital organs" makes him look creepy.
It would be a good attack point. Wouldn't it? Keep Cruz explaining dildos. More dildos. Repeat. Saturday Night Live would love it.
But now switch sides. How does Cruz parry this? What is the strongest way to counter the attack?
***Immediately attack the attacker and hope to make her sorry she brought it up? "This is yet another example of Hillary and Bill Clinton and their disgusting insertion of sexual behavior into the political debate of Americans who care more about their family's safety and job than they do hearing about Bill and Hillary's sexual fascinations! You want to talk about sex, Hillary, bring it up with Bill!"
***Talk like a lawyer and a person of constitutional rectitude? "I thought the law was silly and said so at the time. I did my job, representing Texas, because I obey the rule of law, and if Hillary actually cared about the Constitution she would understand that."
***Attack the culture war snobs? "Hard working Americans are tired of being sneered at and mocked by hipsters and snobs who think it is just dandy for men to put on a bra and waltz into bathrooms for women and girls. I did not support the law--it went too far-- but I understood the impulse behind it, to get trashy anything goes in-your-face sexual acting out and bright purple tex toys out of the faces of our children. I'm sick of the trust-fund snobs of the Upper West Side of Manhattan with their contempt for hard working Americans."
Would any or all of those responses be the right approach? My own sense is that both sides might, even anticipating the other's response, be content to have it play out. A Democratic weapon is the notion of Republican bedroom over-reach and it solidifies the base of younger people who fear and resent Republican initiatives in this area. But a red-state Republican weapon is fear and resentment of liberal and PC snobbery on matters of sex, church, and civilization that fueled Reagan Democrats in the past and Trump now.
Imagine this to be a pop-quiz question in a political science course. What should the Democrats do with this, if anything? What should Cruz do if the attack comes?
No comments:
Post a Comment