Nothing embodies asymmetrical warfare in the 21st century better than the improvised explosive device- the IED. Anybody can make one, and after it’s done its damage, there’s usually nobody to blame. Even with the best trained, best funded, most sophisticated military in the world, the United States is struggling to defend itself and its soldiers from IED attacks in Iraq, without the benefit of knowing exactly who the attackers are.
In a parallel way, the presidential campaigns are beginning to encounter asymmetrical attacks of their own via YouTube- call it the IED, the Internet Explosive Device, of 2008 politics. For every thoughtful conversation a candidate starts on the web and each well-lit, competently scripted announcement they make, YouTube is serving up an endless stream of visual vitriol- long-forgotten embarrassments the contenders would rather not remember, as well as cleverly produced spots lampooning the potential presidents.
For anyone with broadband and a curious streak, the online video warehouse is a smorgasbord of political fodder. There’s Rudy Giuliani’s drag-clad encounter with Donald Trump, complete with the Donald’s nose in “Ms.” Giuliani’s décolletage. There’s John Edwards straining to peer into a palm-sized mirror to determine if his hair will hold properly with the hair spray just applied by a staffer. Of course, there’s the now-infamous 1984 spot painting Hillary Clinton as an Orwellian dictator.
The AP has revealed the identity of the 1984 producer, but the rest are people named “scuzzler,” “itsgiulianitime,” and “nra0123,” leaving to the imagination whether they came from a competing campaign, a bored high school student or a truly engaged voter tired of waiting for the press to dig up what’s clearly in the front yard.
Like well-fortified armies, the McCain, Clinton, Obama and Giuliani campaigns, among others, are preparing to do battle in 2008. As in the past, they’re raising money, recruiting manpower and developing strategies for every contingency, both offensive and defensive, against whichever rival comes out of the nominating process. But like the Army of today, they cannot prepare for what they cannot predict and will not be able to respond to enemies without identities. The surprise attacks, the IED’s for their campaigns, will be imbedded in YouTube.
I usually chafe at parallels drawn between war and politics. In a superficial sense, the comparison fits- working on a political campaign certainly involves a fight against an adversary. It creates a war of words and requires tactical acumen. Campaign workers with a flair for the dramatic even adopt a soldier-like Spartan lifestyle, sleeping on cots, consuming meals ready to eat (via Stouffers), and maybe making a run for the border, to grab a burrito, of course. But routine comparisons between war and politics do not give nearly enough credit to the men and women in uniform to justify the analogy.
But it is disturbing to contemplate that in order to become the next commander-in-chief, the successful candidate will have to run a gauntlet now made impossibly narrow by the phenomenon of video sharing. Every moment on film, every image, every word ever spoken in front of a camera is fair game, whether the impression made is real or not.
Rival campaigns have always attacked each other in this manner, but also sniping this cycle will be Internet Explosive Device makers whose identities are unknown and whose motivations are mysteries. The Federal Election Commission has copious regulations forcing full disclosure from candidates, campaigns, PACs, and donors because we’ve said it’s important to know who is involved in the political process. Nothing exists to spill sunlight over the uncharted territory where campaigns are going now.
Clausewitz said, “War is the advance of politics by other means.” But what is the advance of politics by other means? In some ways, it looks a lot like war.