He Shocks, He Scores!
I have a confession: until yesterday, I didn’t know who Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) was. In fact, if you’d mentioned Alan Grayson to me before yesterday, I might have thought you’d said “Ari Graynor,” and would have responded by saying that she was good in the otherwise disappointing Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist.
Today, however, I know who Alan Grayson is for one reason only: he is the latest obscure politician to garner national attention for an intemperate remark. Indeed, on Tuesday night, Grayson outrageously declared from the House floor that, “Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.” Then, when the anticipated firestorm followed on cue, Grayson fanned the flames: rather than apologizing to his Republican colleagues, he apologized to “the dead and their families,” calling the death of those who lack health insurance a “holocaust in America.”
The rise to national fame/infamy soon assumed Palinesque proportions. Within hours, Alan Grayson’s outburst had made him the far left’s favorite son, Republicans’ sworn enemy, Arianna Huffington’s latest raison d’talk, and – most importantly – well-known. The next chapter of this strangely familiar saga seems similarly predictable: Grayson will soon be submerged in a weighty wad of online campaign contributions. And, most fortuitously for Grayson, these contributions will come at just the right time: he doesn’t have a Republican opponent yet for the 2010 elections, so his forthcoming war chest could deter a challenge.
It almost seems like Grayson had it all planned. Almost.
Of course, Grayson would hardly be the first politician to recognize that, simply put, there is no such thing as bad publicity. The problem, however, is that the Age of Hypermedia has magnified the incentives for crude political behavior substantially. Indeed, desperate politicians – particularly those expecting stiff competition in the next election – know that outrageous statements are more likely to get broadcast/blogged/tweeted/posted/forwarded than well-reasoned ones. They further know that these statements will mostly alienate those who wouldn’t have voted for them anyway, while the die-hards will back them more strongly than ever – and often with cash. Just ask Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), whose receipts rose substantially after she suggested that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama held “anti-American views”; or Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), who reaped $1.8 million in contributions barely a week after he shouted “you lie” at President Obama during a joint-session of Congress.
The power to change this trend lies mostly with party leaders. When House Democrats pass a resolution censuring Joe Wilson – or when House Republicans attempt to do the same regarding Alan Grayson – they give outrageous behavior far more credit than it deserves, and counterproductively rally the die-hards to defend the indefensible. In turn, party leaders might be best served by letting outrageous statements from members of the opposing party speak for themselves. Most Americans don’t need an act of Congress to recognize that shouting at the President is wrong, and forgoing that act of Congress denies the die-hards their battle cry.
Moreover, party leaders need to discipline their own candidates for uncivil behavior. This isn’t just a moral issue, but a strategic one. After all, the more money that flows to a party’s most blustering candidates, the less money available for moderate ones – and the more quickly a party becomes identified by its most controversial members on account of their fundraising prowess.