[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 31 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E445-E446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ``THE ATTACK CULTURE''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 12, 1997

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, as usual, the columnist Robert J. Samuelson 
has written very clearly and concisely about the scandals and the so-
called attack culture that we find ourselves in today. I recommend the 
following column to my colleagues:

                           The Attack Culture

                        (By Robert J. Samuelson)

       ``Scandal'' is the latest word to lose its meaning. The 
     threshold for scandal has moved so low that Washington is 
     almost never without one. The newest is the ``campaign 
     finance'' scandal, but we are still dealing with the 
     Whitewater scandal and the Gingrich scandal. We have a 
     permanent apparatus of investigators, partisans and reporters 
     working full time to discover and publicize alleged 
     wrongdoing--and calling everything they examine a scandal or 
     potential scandal. Growing outrage is expressed

[[Page E446]]

     over offenses that seem ever more obscure or trivial.
       Of course, there are genuine scandals, and the behavior of 
     our highest (or lowest) officials must be open to scrutiny. 
     Government and the people who run it can be accountable only 
     if their activities can be inspected. But the process has 
     become twisted into a parody. At last week's press 
     conference, President Clinton was asked 18 questions; 15 
     concerned campaign fund-raising. Was that the only important 
     matter?
       What we're seeing is the attack culture. By attack culture, 
     I mean a mind-set and set of practices that go beyond 
     ordinary partisanship, criticism, debate and investigation. 
     What defines the attack culture is that its animating 
     spirit--unexpressed, but obvious--is to destroy and bring 
     down. Does anyone doubt that the assorted Whitewater 
     investigations aim to destroy President Clinton and the first 
     lady? Does anyone doubt that the charges against House 
     Speaker Gingrich were motivated less by ethical sensitivities 
     than the desire to annihilate him politically?
       Investigation, always a political weapon, is now more so 
     than ever. In a 1990 book (``Politics by Other Means''), 
     political scientists Benjamin Ginsberg and Martin Shefter 
     correctly observed: ``American politics has recently 
     undergone a fundamental transformation. . . . [C]ontending 
     forces are increasingly relying on such institutional weapons 
     of political struggle as legislative investigations, media 
     revelations, and judicial proceedings to weaken their 
     political rivals and gain power for themselves.''
       The attack culture originated with Watergate, and Nixon--
     destroyed and forced to resign--remains the standard of 
     success. The mimicking of Watergate is increasingly 
     undemocratic and breeds disrespect for the law, politics 
     and (if anyone cares) the press. Most Americans sense that 
     the process is out of control, because no one--no one, 
     that is, who doesn't study these scandals for countless 
     hours--can understand what they're about.
       What was Gingrich's great offense? Well, he taught a 
     college course (a sin?). Then, some videotapes of the course 
     were used for political promotion (gee, a politician acting 
     political). But wait: The course was financed by tax-
     deductible charitable donations, which aren't allowed for 
     politics. Therefore, Gingrich committed a no-no and 
     compounded it by providing false information to Congress (an 
     innocent mistake, he claims; a willful deception, say his 
     foes). Clinton may be guilty of a crime in Whitewater, but 
     three investigations--costing more than $24 million--have yet 
     to disclose what it is.
       I am no fan of Clinton's or Gingrich's; nor am I defending 
     their behavior and certainly wouldn't offer it as a model to 
     my children. But we have elections for voters to decide 
     whether, all things considered, they want to retain their 
     elected leaders. Except in rare cases, that job shouldn't be 
     hijacked by courts, prosecutors or the press with 
     investigations that are increasingly inquisitional. They aim 
     to prejudice people against their target, even if no serious 
     charges are ultimately sustained. The process is abused, 
     because the investigations are selective (often triggered by 
     the target's prominence) and aim (by adverse publicity) to 
     convict and punish the target.
       The attack culture subsists on personal ambition and 
     various political agendas. Reports want a big story; 
     prosecutors seek convictions; partisans crave power. And the 
     mere act of investigation creates pressures for results. 
     Resources have been committed; reputations are at stake. 
     Hardly anyone wants to say: ``Sorry, nothing here'' or ``It's 
     trivial.'' Every mistake, error or personal excess is 
     elevated to a great evil. Sinister motives are alleged or 
     implied. If it's not a scandal, why bother?
       It's also guilty until proven innocent. Some investigations 
     are self-fulfilling. There are so many laws and regulations 
     that anyone who is investigated exhaustively may be found 
     to have violated something. And some targets, flustered or 
     embarrassed, blunder into criminal coverups. Nor are the 
     targets only prominent officials. The federal Office of 
     Research Integrity recently cleared an experienced 
     scientist of misconduct. But for three years, he was 
     subject to congressional hearings and had his research 
     branded fraudulent. Those years, he said, ``have been holy 
     hell. They took away my position, my reputation, my 
     work.''
       People are smeared because the attack culture is heavy-
     handed and single-minded. The current furor over campaign 
     financing fits the pattern. It is driven by a coalition of 
     Clinton haters, campaign-finance reformers and the press. The 
     story surely seems compelling: the president (apparently) 
     brokering the Lincoln bedroom for contributions; a host of 
     seedy characters schmoozing at the White House; Al gore 
     dialing for dollars from his office.
       What's missing is perspective. The $2.96 million returned 
     by the Democratic National Committee constitutes only 1.3 
     percent of all DNC contributions. Questionable gifts didn't 
     affect the election's outcome, and there's no evidence that 
     donations changed any major policy. Much fund-raising is 
     sleazy. But no one should forget that giving money to a 
     candidate or party is a form of political speech. Donations 
     can't easily be limited without compromising free speech. The 
     present hysteria--nurtured by self-proclaimed reformers--
     intentionally obscures this point.
       All the crusading doesn't reassure the public. Just the 
     opposite. Because most people grasp that the process has been 
     corrupted--being moved by ambition and politics--they put the 
     attackers and the accused increasingly on the same moral 
     plane. A plague on everyone. We become desensitized to 
     genuine scandal because the artificial variety is so common. 
     All democracies need to examine their officials; an enduring 
     dilemma is how to prevent legitimate inquiry from sliding 
     into sanctioned tyranny. When everything's a scandal, we're 
     losing the proper balance.

                          ____________________