The Politics and Psychology of FISA

Last week, I spoke a bit about the policy rationale behind warrantless wiretapping. As a matter of policy, there are interesting and divergent arguements to be made. On the issue of politics though, the outlook is rather clear...this is one of the few big winners the Reps have in 2008. In fact, the Democrats in the House handed the Reps a political gift by failing to pass the legislation authorizing warrantless wiretapping and insulating phone companies from lawsuits.

FISA was passed initially in part in response to the revelation that Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders had their phones tapped by Presidents in the 1960's. This is important to know because in politics one almost finds themselves in the majority when they defend sympathetic victims and attack those easy to demonize. I have already pointed out how effectively some politicians have accomplished this in the ongoing debate in the aftermath of the mortgage crisis...where they side with the borowers and attack folks like me, the mortgage brokers. The problem for the Democrats now is that there are no sympathetic victims for them to side with. By blocking this legislation, they can, and have, be effectively painted as siding with the terrorists themselves. While they speak of theoretical civil rights, there are no actual victims of any sort of illegal warrantless wiretaps. All the supposed victims are theoretical. There are, on the other, hand real victims of real terrorist attacks, and the rest of us want no more.

The other problem for the Dems is the manner in which this issue has been approached. They waited until it nearly expired in the summer only to blink and pass a six month extension in the last minute. Now, the Senate has passed it overwhelmingly (68-29) whereas the House has sat on it. Their high principles don't match their actions. While they can act as though they are standing up for the highest principles, they are acting much more like cowardly politicians.

Because the details of this program are classified, no one will know how exactly it is used and just how vital it is (or not so vital depending on your perspective). That is left up to perception. The President will continue to hammer home that it is vital and he will send out folks like Mike McConnell, CIA chief, to stress its vitality. The Democrats will send out folks like Steny Hoyer to claim the President is fear mongering. Unfortunately, the Democrats already start at a disadvantage. They carry the perception of being soft on national security. The CIA has taken a hit to its reputation recently, but in a battle of perception, I will take the CIA on issues of national security over Steny Hoyer.

The polls on the subject are ultimately inconclusive and all depend on how the question is asked. Americans are overwhelmingly for listening to terrorists with or without warrants, however against Americans being listened to without warrants. This brings me back to my original point: the terrorists are real whereas the Americans are ultimately, for now at least, hypothetical. Without any documented cases of abuse, this issue will ultimately work for the Reps because it will be seen as a tool against terrorists. This is just one of several issues where the Democrats leave themselves open to serious vulnerabilities by playing to their base. Whatever the polling of Americans, the polling among the Dem's base is clear: they hate it. By playing to it though, they leave themselves wide open to attacks on national security grounds.

McCain has already taken the rhetorical lead in this debate and he will likely try and make national security and the GWOT key issues in the campaign. In my opinion, the Dems are in trouble if this campaign becomes about national security, the GWOT, and even Iraq. They will win if they focus on domestic issues like the economy, health care, and others like those. Had the House merely allowed the passage of this law to go through, it would have put it to the back burner where it would have been best for the Dems. Instead, it will become a front burner issue for at least two weeks. Clinton didn't even vote when the measure came up in the Senate and Obama voted against it.

Clinton's non vote will only go to perpetuate her image as a waffler and politician who doesn't want to take a firm position. Obama, on the other hand, will actually give policy. Obama's strength is not specific policy, in my opinion. (His ridiculous jobs plan is the most recent example of what happens when he actually comes up with something specific) Obama has not only voted against the measure, but is on record as saying he would end the program altogether. As long as Obama is talking about hope and togetherness he perpetuates the image of the hope of all. Once he talks about specific policies, he perpetuates the image of tax and spend liberal (like with his jobs plan) on domestic issues, radical liberal on social policies (like being to the left of Planned Parenthood on abortion), and dovish on national security like this issue.

Either way, politically, in the long run, the longer this goes the worse it is for the Dems and the better it is for the Reps.