All is fair in love, war, and politics. Most don’t actually believe that unconditionally, but when push comes to shove, principles of fairness have a way of bending in the furtherance of some higher causes and outcomes.
As a politician, Mitt Romney appears to be more than rhetorically challenged. He seems to have some kind of disability when it comes to expressing himself spontaneously in a politically positive way. Examples are by now too many to list, though if he does become the Republican Presidential candidate, every last one of the verbal blunders made and yet to be made are sure to be front and center.
In a radio interview this week, Romney was asked about federal spending he would cut as President, and among other programs, he said he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood. It is obvious that what he meant was that he would cut federal support for Planned Parenthood. But since everything that any politician says can be taken and used in different ways, there are a number of possibilities:
He meant just what he said, inartfully as usual, that he would cut federal spending for the organization, and that no tax money would be spent there.
He meant that he would cut federal spending for the organization, which in turn would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood. Romney presumably knows better and knows that Planned Parenthood has other funding sources, though it would be no doubt be hurt by such a cut.
He meant to send a message to some conservative voters that he disdains Planned Parenthood as much as they do, and while he would only be able to propose cuts in federal support, if he had the power to directly control the fate of the organization (which he wouldn’t), he would love to get rid of it.
A number of vocal and visible Democratic proponents believe and have seized on the last interpretation. But to make that point, and to avoid getting into long-form exegetical nuance, they simply quote Romney saying that he wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood. The problem is that in context, that isn’t what he said, even if he meant or was signaling something bigger and more significant.
Democrats regularly complain, justifiably, when they and President Obama are the targets of out of context quotes and multimedia moments. As with all kinds of questionable tactics, from love to war, it comes down to a choice between adopting the inglorious approach, fire-with-fire, or recognizing and reaching for higher ground. The point of fairness is that if it isn’t universally applied, it becomes an expedient tool to be used or left in the toolbox as the situation demands.
If truth is the first casualty of war, maybe fairness is the first casualty of politics. But it shouldn’t be, because we are better than that. Or at least we think we are.
Bob Schwartz 