Nontroversies

Nontroversy: n. A contraction of the term non-controversy; a contrived controversy meant to change a discussion from substantive to petty. Syn. gossip, whining, hackery, petulance, hypocrisy

I began writing an article for The Texas Blue last month about the Move On ad using a nickname apparently coined by his former soldiers for General David Petraeus to mark his testimony before Congress on progress in Iraq. The now-infamous "Betray Us" ad was seized upon by the Congressional minority and one of the most unpopular White Houses since the Great Depression who promptly reached for their smelling salts as one minority Representative, Senator and spokesperson after another crumpled onto their fainting couches in exhausted outrage.

The dynamic that emerged during that time period fascinated me on two fronts: How the Congressional minority threw enough of a tantrum to whip the Congressional majority into passing legislation condemning the ad and what this revealed about the mindset of the Congressional majority's leadership. This same dynamic was on display again last week in the House, this time in terms of Representative Pete Stark's comments on the House floor regarding funding S-CHIP and the war in Iraq.

Our contemporary Republicans are masters of the art of the nontroversy. The basic formula for generating a nontroversy is simple: Take something inflammatory, pump it up like a cheap penny stock, demand that all Democrats denounce this newly manufactured controversy and then proceed to blame all Democrats for whatever reason was behind the nontroversy despite whether or not they condemned it. Rinse. Repeat.

What is not so straightforward is how the Congressional majority's leadership reacts to nontroversies. Since nontroversies begin with a nugget of something inflammatory (Move On's portrayal of the U.S. Commander in Iraq as betraying his troops and Representative Stark's portrayal of the President as being amused by the situation in Iraq), the Congressional majority's leadership usually feels compelled to treat nontroversies as controversies instead of dismissing them as the distracting shell game they are in reality.

If Speaker Pelosi and her lieutenants don't understand that the Republican minority are still making them look as ridiculous and sad as Wiley E. Coyote, forever running off cliffs and having anvils dropped on his head, then we need new leadership. I think it is more likely that what the Congressional leadership is doing right now is trying to remain as passive as possible on the core issues of this session and in order to let the Republicans dig themselves further into a hole leading into next year's elections. What I fear is that this "punt on 2nd down" strategy is also undermining the public trust placed in the Democratic Party when we were delivered into the majority in the House and Senate last November.

Perhaps Speaker Pelosi et. al. are privy to some super-secret decoder ring public opinion data that I'm not and I'm completely wrong on this hunch, but I think it's more complex and wrong-headed than that. In talking to committed Democrats, independents who are leaning Democratic and moderate Republicans finally fed up with the fiscal and constitutional excessed of the Bush Republican Party, there is one refrain that I have heard loud and clear time and time again from each of these demographics: Stand up for your principles!

Speaker Pelosi, Representative Hoyer and Representative Emmanuel have spoken at length about the numerous accomplishments of this Congress. They should promote the many good things this Congress has done and promote them often. What they should not be doing, though, is talking about these successes as an answer to questions about Iraq and FISA. On these core topics, the voting public is not listening to successes in other areas. Despite such solid progressive accomplishments as raising the minimum wage, the simple electoral fact is that very few outside the Democratic fold voted for this Democratic majority on the strength of anything other than two core issues: Ending the occupation of Iraq and curbing the excesses of the Bush administration. It really is that simple. Those two things were the brief in the minds of many voters, and on those two points, this Congressional majority's leadership has not stood up for their principles.

This is not about winning votes with veto-proof majorities. No realistic voter expects Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid to conjure a veto-proof majority voting to get the U.S. out of Iraq on the most hotly-contested issue of our time. It simply can't be done given the current make up of the House and Senate. What matters, though, is how the public perceives the Congressional majority's leadership addressing this issue with persistence and good faith vis a vie the mandate they were given by voters last November.

Here is where the nontroversy becomes such a major problem for Congressional Democrats. In my opinion, angry Democrats, independents willing to listen to Democrats and moderate Republicans disillusioned with their own party are looking for principled stands and distinct differences. When the Congressional majority's leadership snaps to attention and responds as rapidly to a nontroversy as they did in bandwagoning onto the condemnation of Move On's Petraeus ad, it signals weakness in leadership to not only to their opponents, but also to their current and potential supporters. When the same leadership offers a Representative an "offer he can't refuse" between retracting his comments or facing their support for a motion to censure him for those comments, it sends the same principle-crippling message to opponents, supporters and those on the fence.

Eli Pariser and the rest of Move On are not elected members of Congress. Also, I believe that Representative Stark speaks only for himself and his district, not for the entire Party. If the Congressional leadership is going to continue to punt on 2nd down for the remainder of this session leading into next year's elections, they should also lie low with regards to their supporters and members of their own caucus. When they give the impression that they are willing to let the core issues slide but at the same time they are vigorously policing their own side, they're losing votes. They're not losing them to the Republicans this time around, but rather these are votes that simply will not be cast due to disgust. And therein lies the cost of the nontroversy.

This moment is too historic to lose votes. We have what I believe is a once-in-a-generation chance to deal a decisive blow to the Republican Party by standing for restraint and the return of sanity and principle in this election. We need to embrace it instead of punting it, too.