Political truth in labeling

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 (UPI) -- While certainly not a recent development, it seems the practice of intentionally, not to mention grossly, misrepresenting one's position -- or an opponent's position -- on certain public policy issues is getting way out of hand.

Consider the debate over immigration. The White House crowd regularly paints everyone and anyone who voices an objection to illegal immigration as anti-immigrant or, worse, a racist. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge any distinction between legal and illegal immigration, while at the same time denying that their "guest worker" program to legalize illegal immigrants is an "amnesty" proposal.

Or consider this Paul Bunyan-esque tall tale from Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, which appeared in a Wall Street Journal op/ed recently: "With Congress's completion of its work on the 2005 budget this week, President Bush and Congressional leaders have achieved a significant victory in the battle for spending discipline in Washington."

Is this guy kidding? "Spending discipline"? Good grief.

What Congress and the president actually and factually did was raise the debt ceiling to more than $8 trillion before passing a larded-up $388 billion omnibus spending bill, which included such "must have" items as $100,000 for a swimming pool in Kansas and $25,000 to study mariachi music in Nevada.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it'll still a pig. And you can call slurping at the public trough "spending discipline" 'til the cows come home, but it'll still be pork-barrel spending. Bolten should be embarrassed for trying to dress up this oinker and pass her off as a prom queen.

Then there are the abortion folks, on both sides of the issue, who have elevated distortion contortions to an art-form.

Many anti-abortion rights activists systematically and routinely paint anyone who has a legitimate concern with allowing the government into such a deeply emotional and personal decision -- including anti-abortion rights folks who make exceptions in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother -- as "pro-abortion." Not anti-government. Not "pro-life" with rare exceptions.

It's just not so. And the anti-abortion rights movement doesn't help itself persuade folks to its side of the debate by falsely and grotesquely mislabeling people who are truly and understandably conflicted on this issue.

The pro-abortion rights folks are no better.

Congress recently passed a bill that says the government cannot coerce hospitals to perform abortions or force insurers to pay for them. There's just no reason in the world why a Roman Catholic hospital should be forced to perform a procedure that the church so strenuously objects to on moral grounds. This legislation is common sense and it's reasonable.

But one of the NARAL Pro-Choice America gals threw a veritable fit over it. "This bill highlights the true agenda of the far right," squawked Elizabeth Cavendish, the groups interim president, "eliminating a woman's right to choose."

You see. There they go again. The bill did no such thing. A woman is still free to choose abortion in this country. But hospitals are also now free to make a choice, and choose not to provide that particular service.

"Congress is playing politics with the lives and health of women," Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation bellyached hysterically.

Hogwash. If a woman chooses to have a legal abortion after this bill is enacted, she'll just have to get it from a doctor or hospital that chooses to provide that service. Congress merely extended "choice" on this issue to others. But apparently, in the minds of the pro-abortion rights crowd, the anti-abortion rights road is a one-way street.

What's it say about your position in a public policy debate when you have to misrepresent or exaggerate in order to defend or promote it? Perhaps Americans wouldn't be so cynical about their government if we introduced a little truth-in-labeling to our public policy debates. But don't hold your breath waiting.

--

(Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a conservative non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He can be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com.)

--

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)