Some of us can vaguely remember a time when Wesley Clark was going to be the
next Eisenhower - a general above the fray, a former supreme commander of
NATO who had met the great challenges of his time, someone who would Bring
Us Together, lift the tone of national politics, a champion of unity above
the usual divisive politics, The Nation's Hope, and all the rest of the
nominating speech.
But that was long ago in another country, and, besides, that Wesley Clark is
no more - if he was ever real. His appeal as a presidential candidate peaked
the moment he announced back in 2003, if not before, and it steadily
deteriorated with every roundhouse swing he took and missed. Sad.
The general's big mistake? Instead of proving a different kind of candidate,
he became just another partisan of the louder, less enduring sort. Instead
of remaining above the fray, he waded into the muddy thick of it. Instead of
bringing us together, he seemed intent on driving us further apart. Soon his
was just one more rasping voice in the off-key chorus of presidential
also-rans.
Now he's down there among the Michael Moore/Bill O'Reilly bottom-feeders.
Impervious to the lessons of his last failed campaign, General Clark is now
fighting it out in a kind of two-falls-out-of-three exhibition match against
Rush Limbaugh. That's right: El Rushbo himself, The Mouth, the idol of the
dittoheads; in short, the very personification of high-decibel, low-fact
talk radio.
Not only is General Clark taking the Rush
on, he's adopted The Mouth's vociferous style. Maybe it'll get him a job in
the next Clinton administration - the kind of slot reserved for the hacks
who do the dirty work in a presidential campaign.
Rush Limbaugh's style may be the essence of vulgarity, but even the vulgar
can be smeared. It happened this way: On his Morning Update, a kind of daily
communique for true believers, Mr. Limbaugh had gone after one Jesse
MacBeth, one of those celebrated anti-war soldiers who turned out to be
anti-factual. (It's a wonder The New Republic didn't sign him up as a
regular contributor, a la its fact-challenged Scott Thomas Beauchamp.)
But leave it to El Rushbo to tell the story in his own imitable style:
"Recently Jesse MacBeth, the poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day
in court. He was sentenced to five months in jail (and) three years'
probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim; his Army
discharge record, too. Yes, Jesse MacBeth was in the Army. Briefly.
Fourty-four days. Before he washed out of boot camp. MacBeth is not an Army
Ranger; he is not a corporal; he never won the Purple Heart; he was never in
combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen."
One of Rush's dittoheads soon called in to complain that the Biased Media
"never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of
the blue and sound off to the media." That's when The Mouth of the Right
blurted out - "the phony soldiers."
Uh oh. An anti-war group, Media Matters, seized upon that plural like a bird
of prey on a shiny jewel, and used it to contend that Mr. Limbaugh had
smeared "service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq." Whereupon
the Rush said it was clear he was referring only to Jesse MacBeth and his
like.
Well, it wasn't clear to Media Matters. The left was shocked - shocked! This
is how the rhetorical game is played. The point isn't to debate principles
or policies but to play Gotcha.
Besides, the Dems in the Senate needed a cause to get outraged over after
MoveOn.org - the GOP's best foil - had embarrassed them by its attack on
General Petraeus/Betray-Us. The backlash had hurt.
Soon enough, Wesley Clark was claiming that Rush Limbaugh had "labeled any
American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as 'phony.' " Any soldier. Goodness. Talk about word games, even the
president and commander-in-chief could be said to support "an end to the war
in Iraq" - if on his own victorious terms.
And now General Clark's own Web site, WesPac, its logo ablaze with four
stars, is asking folks to ban Rush from Armed Forces Radio: "Click here to hold Rush Limbaugh accountable for his offensive and
outrageous comments - tell your members of Congress to take Rush off Armed
Forces radio today!"
The bold-faced and underlined type pretty well sums up the tone of General
Clark's appeal: cheap but flashy. The general's rhetorical style is but a
print version of Rush's own deep-throated roar over the air. And the
"principle" he's asserting in this rhetorical rasslin' match is the oldest
and unfairest: If you can't beat 'em, shut 'em up.
How's that for a lesson in freedom of speech and The American Way? In the
event there's any doubt about what General Clark is up to, his Web site
carries a less than flattering picture of El Rushbo - complete with stogie -
imprinted with the demand: DUMP RUSH. The whole Web site is the mod,
Internetted equivalent of the old, cheaply mimeographed hand-outs, replete
with all-caps and exclamation points, that used to be popular only in the
lower reaches of American sub-politics. It looks the way Rush Limbaugh
sounds.
And so the muddy battle of quote, counter-quote, and counter-counter-quote
rages on - to diminishing interest. It's hard now to recall that better time
when Wesley Clark was going to restore dignity to American politics, not
destroy what's left of it. But once the political bug hits, it can rage out
of control even in generals. Maybe especially in generals. But who says
Wesley Clark can't accomplish the impossible? He's made Rush Limbaugh - Rush
Limbaugh! - look dignified.
Who's right and who's wrong in this screeching catfight? Answer: Does it
matter? A better question would be: Who has followed his code? Rush is, was,
and surely will remain a tabloid type with a capital T. He has stayed true
to his loud calling. What disappoints about Wesley Clark is that he has not
acted as the officer and gentleman he is, but as just another fourth-rate
polemicist. How the mighty have fallen. Yes, sad.