FRAMESHOP:FRAMESHOP: WATER, NOT FIRE

Should Democrats talk about "fire" or "water" when addressing the current White House scandal?

Looking over the media coverage of the White House scandal, it seems there are many more articles about "water" than there are about "fire."

"Water" metaphors are abound in this story, not unlike the Watergate scandal that beset many of the mentors of the Bush White House. 

The most important water metaphor being used in the debate is the idea of a "leak."  What is a leak?  In this instance, a leak is when someone in government makes public something that should have remained private.  Karl Rove tells reporters that Ambassador Joe Wilson is married to an undercover CIA agent--that's the leak in this story.

But a leak is much more than a secret revealed, which is why it has taken over public imagination in this story about White House corruption.  When a pipe leaks, it typically has a crack or hole in it.  Broken things leak.  Moreover, leaks are familiar to everyone.  Leaks are disasters that we discover after they have already been happening for a while.  We look up at the ceiling and we see a dark spot, or we step off that last step in the basement to a wet floor that is supposed to be dry.  Leaks are bad news.  Leaks need to be fixed before the damage gets too bad or too expensive.  One leak that drips slowly over time can bring down an entire ceiling or soften a foundation.

In this debate about crime and corruption in the Bush White House, the word "leak" is operating at multiple levels.  It is interesting.  And that's why it's being repeated.

Now, what about the idea of "firing"  one of Bush's advisers?  Is that resonating?

It doesn't seem to be, which is too bad.  Because if someone has committed a crime, they should be forced to leave their job.  Particularly if that job involves knowing secrets that are judiciously guarded so as to protect the lives of our soldiers. 

The problem is, that when we talk about terminating employment, the word "fire" may sound stern, but it is not something that evokes images.  To fire someone just means to let them go from their job. That's it. What's even worse, just about every day of the week, one politician or another calls for this guy or that woman in government to be fired.  Demands that the President or his advisers be fired are old news.  It happens all the time.

So, what should Democrats do?

Rather than call for Rove to be fired, Democrats would be well served to first call for the leaks in the White House to be fixed.  "Stop the leaks!  The White House is broken!  Let's fix it before any more damage is done!" 

Once this idea of a "leak" is referenced, then it can be specified in terms of the fate Democrats desire for Karl Rove.

How might that sound?

Well, Democrats could demand that the President to "patch up" the problems in the White House.  Or they could demand that the President "replace" Rove before any more leaks damage the White House.  Or they could just ask why the President refused to "fix the source of the leak?"

Calling Rove "the source of the leak" is a way to--ehem--"tap into" the water metaphor that is already dominating the media's coverage of the scandal.  Because everyone knows, if the President is serious about fixing the leak, he can't just put a bucket under the broken pipe.

© 2005 Jeffrey Feldman