Taking umbrage the presidential way

Outrage. It’s so presidential, don’t you think? When a candidate becomes outraged, he or she… Outrage. It’s so presidential, don’t you think? When a candidate becomes outraged, he or she displays a number of qualities befitting for office: resolve, principle and the willingness to stand up for what he or she believes in (namely, themselves). John Dickerson of Slate.com has a better phrase to describe the phenomenon: taking umbrage. In his Monday column “Taking Offense is the Best Offense,” Dickerson noted the tendency of candidates to take umbrage in this campaign, exploiting their feigned outrage to put other candidates on the defensive and take the moral high ground. He writes that, by taking umbrage, “candidates can exploit flamboyant displays of public upset to gain attention, raise money, put their opponents on the defensive and distract from an unfavorable story.”

But as Dickerson presciently noted, taking umbrage only works well if the moral indignation is proportional to the deserved outrage over the event. This had me thinking that the best way to objectively judge the use of candidates’ outrage was to rate them on two scales – one being the display of moral outrage from one to 10, the other being the actual level of outrage one deserves to have over the event. If the two numbers are on opposite ends of the scale, the candidate can be judged as failed in the art of umbrage-taking – he or she either appears spineless, morally culpable or teeming with faux-rage. On the other hand, candidates can use appropriately executed outrage to take the moral high ground, making their opponents look desperate and rally party support.

All of the presidential contenders used outrage during the last week, so let’s take a look at their stories and try to make an objective analysis of who used their moral indignation best.

First up, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. When The New York Times leaked a piece last week about McCain’s shaky past on ethics, readers and journalists alike could only talk about one thing: the insinuated affair he may or may not have had with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The affair was implied by anecdotes from some of his staffers claiming that the closeness of their relationship made them uncomfortable.

“I’m very disappointed in the article,” McCain said. “It’s not true.”

Outrage Displayed: 7.5

Outrage Deserved: 7

John McCain hid his outrage in a cloak of geniality, which worked in his favor, considering so many people felt The Times’ story was too flimsy for publication. The broad consensus over The Times’ misstep helped rally support behind him.

Next, the Democrats. If the mood looked conciliatory in last week’s CNN debate in Texas, that warm, fuzzy feeling had all but evaporated in less than 48 hours, when Hillary Clinton went on the offensive against her rival Barack Obama’s use of negative mailers in Ohio. The ads attacked Clinton’s record on NAFTA and her health care plan, claiming that it would “force everyone to buy insurance.” They recalled Harry and Louise, the characters used in a smear campaign by the Health Insurance Association of America to destroy Clinton’s health care plan during her husband’s administration. She appeared on stage in Ohio Saturday, indignation barely in check.

“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” she said sharply. “Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics.”

Outrage Displayed: 9

Outrage Deserved: 7.5

The ads might seem like small potatoes, but universal health care is both an important and sensitive issue to Clinton, so it’s not surprising she acted the way she did. (Her plan, of course, would include a form of subsidy for lower-income families.) She might have shown a bit too much outrage, though – her “meet me in Ohio” comment sounded like it could have easily been finished with “for a bare-knuckle boxing match.”

Next is Barack Obama, who found a prime opportunity for outrage when someone leaked a photo of Obama in Somalian garb in Wajir, Kenya, to the Drudge Report (Drudge claimed it was leaked by a member of the Clinton campaign, Clinton denies it). The photo sparked droves of controversy over what many saw as an attempt to stir racist fears about Obama’s ethnic origins.

An Obama campaign manager called it “the most shameful, offensive fear mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election,” and Obama called it “sad.”

Outrage Displayed: 6

Outrage Deserved: 6.5

Obama had it just about right on this one, and it’s a good thing, because he neither needs moral outrage nor plays it well. His candidacy is based on being “above” this kind of political tactic, so when he was asked about it at Tuesday’s debate, he was right to dismiss it. Knowing that he couldn’t prove the Clinton campaign’s guilt and the dangers of appearing like he was playing the victim, he handled it best by letting it drop.

There it is, this week in moral indignation. Next week: the politics of opponent-shaming.

E-mail Marin at mec45@pitt.edu.