The problem with a piece like "The Substance of Style" is one of degree. For instance, people will say "I support Bush, but sure, he crossed the line on the issue of gay marriage." Fine, I'd say, how about family planning? The partial birth abortion legislation was said to deal with a procedure that does not affect the health of the woman, which is blatantly untrue, and easily could have been accomplished by including a "health exception."
The Bush Administration also bent over backwards to prevent spending for international family planning programs that even discussed abortion as an option. And, we joined with the likes of the Vatican and Sudan to oppose international agreements that supported gender equality and reproductive rights. The net result of such moves was that a lot more than abortion related programs were harmed. Likewise, the use and discussion of condoms, especially to teenagers (perish the thought!) was seriously affected in many respects. And, even doctors sent over to war zones often had to pass an abortion litmus test.
Other examples can be shown, but the fact is that the "bridge too far" nature of this current bunch is not limited to single issues, though what ones would be particularly upsetting will depend on the individual.* The same applies to the overall point of the discussion, namely, the method used to achieve and retain power. I have had disputes with people in the past that refuse to accept that one side is particularly egregious because both sides cross the line sometimes. Others suggest I'm too idealistic. I probably am, but I would underline that my concern here is that dirty politics has gone too far. It will exist, but it need not exist in this bad of a fashion.
So what do we do about this? The first step probably will be to select certain people and sorts of activities that are deemed to have crossed the line. I think Tom DeLay and George Bush are potential examples, but it might be best to start smaller. Likewise, we can target individual acts such as outing CIA agents, misleading Congress into war, and not letting the minority party be involved in the making of major legislation. For instance, do we foresee a president being impeached for a personal failing anytime soon?
The second step is for key groups, including national parties, to have a spine. For instance, Senate Democrats have shown a bit of spine over the issue of judicial appointments, though how bad this was deemed by some suggests how far we have to go. On the other hand, Democrats overall have let the Republicans and the President run roughshod over their rights and interests, which ultimately hurt the public at large. And, yes, counterattack will mean playing tough and not always totally fair, but even here some limits should (and generally are) be followed.
Next, certain people in power need to show some shame at how far things have gone. Sen. McCain cannot be the only one we refer to and his support of the President suggests even he only takes independence just so far. One example of this is the foreign diplomats from Reagan and Bush administrations who signed up against Dubya's foreign policy. The more years the Republicans are in power will lead to a greater likelihood that some will see that excess is often not necessary or beneficial to their interests.
The people (and their role models) overall also have to expect (demand) more from their leaders than lip service to a certain ideology or making them feel good to be American. And, this itself is a result of pretty low expectations. A few good national models (including those who demand a higher standard be met) would be helpful, but a change in culture will be required. The current bunch just reaffirms the status quo, extending the cynicism and misguided ideals for candidates to follow. As long as George Bush is accepted as an ideal candidate, more George Bushes will be elected.
I'd add that the press (including editors and commentators) could help here, though education, moral training, and other cultural institutions will ultimately probably be more important. The press serves as a sort of stenographer,** giving both sides equal time without analysis, which is often basically useless. If you are reading about a new drug, and know quite little about biology, would just reading the talking points of two competing scientists help you determine who's right? It is even worse when the press, and not just Fox, accepts misleading spin (or plain falsehood) as fact. Finally, scattered critical articles are not enough.
We have a right to expect more. We can expect more. We must demand more!
----
* The war in Iraq and fiscal policy are two prime examples for those who want something other than social policies. It is sometimes hard to find those who really agree with how they have been handled, even among the usual ideological allies. The only way the Bushies can retain power therefore is to allege that the other side is woefully inept at national security. This is truly ironic, but is rather successful, especially given their tendency not to let facts stand in their way.
** I know a stenographer. I respect the profession. It just is not an ideal role for the press.