1/11/01 9:00 a.m.
Chavez Lessons
One for the books.

By Robert A. George, an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

he Linda Chavez episode is a particularly upsetting one for many conservatives. She has been a loyal warrior in Washington, leading the fight on some of the most contentious policy questions, especially affirmative action, bilingual education, and immigration. She clearly paid her dues. Thus, the collapse of her nomination for labor secretary adds a distinct personal element to the entire confirmation battle. However, it would be a mistake to fault the Bush team for having little stomach to go to the mat on this one battle. Sadly, given what the transition team had to work with, it had little choice.

As the story unfolded, there were three basic allegations swirling around Linda Chavez's withdrawal as Bush's labor secretary:

1. Marta Mercado was an illegal immigrant staying at Chavez's house in the early '90s.
2. Chavez employed Mercado for various domestic duties and neglected to pay Social Security taxes.
3. Chavez did not sufficiently inform the Bush transition team on the circumstances of either Mercado's status or the circumstances of her staying in Chavez's home.

Of these three issues, only #2 seemed to have been clarified quickly after the story broke. NRO's John Miller, a former employee of Chavez's Washington organization, bore witness to having met Mercado at Chavez's house and that she seemed definitely to be a houseguest and not a domestic (in the employment sense).

The one advantage that the right has had over the left during both impeachment and the post-election battle is truth and one set "narrative." By focusing on the law, conservatives were able to battle the liberal tendency to try to obfuscate the issues with cheap sentimentality. With new information coming out, it is difficult to mount a coherent defense for an embattled political figure. When the facts are either unknown or obscured, legitimate attempts at truth end up sounding like spin. John Miller says, rather movingly, " A lot of people — myself included — have wondered what compassionate conservatism is, and how to define it. I'm still not sure, but I think I know it when I see it. And this is it." When John says it, it has the ring of truth and legitimacy. When similar words are uttered by defenders who only know (part of) the story, it starts to look like this time the right is revving up the spin machine.

The unfortunate legacy of the Clinton years and the 24-hour cable explosion is that the average person who follows politics becomes pretty much attuned to hearing the two sides get into a political debate and start quoting from their respective talking points.

Furthermore John couldn't speak to either of the remaining two issues. That fueled speculation along the lines of, "What did Linda know about Marta's status, and when did she know it?" She admitted in her Tuesday press conference that she "probably always knew that [Marta] was illegal." It's true that the liberals are hypocritical when attacking a conservative for being compassionate. But when conservatives have staked their reputations in two huge constitutional crises on adherence to the rule of law, it's not as if questions about knowledge of someone being in the country illegally are exactly out of bounds. Add in another, slightly more awkward, problem: many conservatives view immigration, especially of the illegal variety, as a major problem to which Republicans don't pay enough close attention. That final aspect could very well have led the Chavez situation to degrade from a "Borking" into a "Towering," so-called because the John Tower confirmation was defeated partly because some social conservatives turned on the nominee.

Finally, Linda Chavez herself admitted that she wasn't as forthcoming on the Mercado situation as she could have been. That's issue Number Three and the one that brings in the Bush team's role. Even if this was an innocent mistake partly brought about — credibly — because of the truncated transition period, it is still a fatal error. Confusion was tossed into the situation, false information was leaked as to when Chavez knew about the Mercado's status. Chavez probably didn't intentionally mislead anyone. Unfortunately, the omission made it difficult to give a full-throated defense, because the facts were being hastily brought in.

Conservatives know full well that a double-standard exists on their behavior. That's just the environment in which we operate. But combining that reality with the Bushes trying to form the first post-Clinton government, forces nominees to have a personal image of the "Caesar's wife" variety, since the liberals will already be counted on to vilify the nominee on ideological grounds. The group Chavez brought forth on Tuesday, individuals she had helped over the years would have been ideal firepower for the transition team to point to had they all the information on Mercado ahead of time. After the story had already formed a narrative of its own, it was way too late.

The Chavez saga is tragic. But hopefully, conservatives can draw lessons from it for future battles. Meanwhile, the true test for how fastidious Bush will be in defending one of his lieutenants facing ideological assault will be seen in how he acts once he has all the information in front of him. Fortunately, John Ashcroft presents the perfect opportunity.