Who Can Really Say?

Every candidate for public office has a backstory -- essentially a profile of the candidate's background -- a summary biography if you will. In local races it will go something like this. "Jane holds a degree in X and for the last 15 years has been active on the Zoning Board and then the Board of Education. She works as a Vice President for YZ Corp. and before that she ran a small business that sold widgets. Jane is married to John and they have 3 children." When I was a kid my Dad was a borough councilman. When he ran for re-election, Mom, Dad, and us 4 kids all posed for a picture to be used in campaign literature. There's your backstory.

The bigger the election, the closer folks look at the backstory, and the more elaborate it's likely to be. In a Presidential election, there's often a campaign biography with lot's of details. The idea is to help the voters get a measure of the candidate. And it should go without saying that it's common practice in politics to attack the backstory when able. It happened a bit to George H.W. Bush and to Bob Dole, to Al Gore and to Bill Clinton (no links to these two as I'm a) too lazy to find them and b) I take it for granted everyone remembers them).

Part of the problem with attacking the backstory is that there's no agreement as to what constitutes fair game. If Jane, above, had an abortion when she and John were in college, is that fair game? Does it matter if she's pro-life or pro-choice? What if she had a drinking problem last year, or 20 years ago? Does it matter how much time has passed? Does it matter if a DUI conviction was involved? The two parties (and the press) seem on some level to agree that some things don't get reported or attacked, but they can't agree on what they are because it's too tempting to take the first bite out of the opponent.

That's especially so as the dirt gets juicer. What if Bush was about to be court martialed because he went AWOL but it was all papered over with the helpful assistance of his Dad's friends? What if Kerry was a prima donna who used the angles and the slighest injuries to get his Purple Hearts and go home so he could start his political career?

Which brings us to Kerry and Bush, to medals and discharges. The rhetoric used to assert or defend the various claims would be hilarious for their hypocrisy if the stakes weren't as high as they are. Kerry is entitled to his Purple Hearts because he has the documents to prove it. Bush is entitled to respect for his service record because he has the honorable discharge to prove it. Or not, take your pick, and remember, points will be deducted for consistency. Meanwhile, the good government types (and we all are good government types, aren't we?) ask for some sanity.

No, what's really hilarious about it all is that we keep having these arguments as if they are fresh and new. They are not. They are as old as the first election. It is the purest of politics, an oil that lubricates the very machinery of elections. There is no standard, against which we can measure which attack is fair and which isn't because in politics, there is no fairness. There is only winning on election day.

[Shameless link to Beltway Traffic Jam.]