The Case for Not Going Negative

So if Barack Obama cavorts with terrorists (Bill Ayers) and John McCain runs around with lobbyists (Charles Keating), why bother vote -- since both candidates will bring Armageddon to the American Dream as we know it?

That is the feeling among a wide swath of the undecided electorate, who are growing fed up by both campaigns and may just stay home November 4. Obama has promised he will not be the first to throw fire but will be the last one standing in a firefight. Ok, fine, but why feel the need to counterattack in the first place?

The reason is Obama has learned all the wrong lessons from the "swift boat" debacle of 2004. Conventional wisdom in Washington holds that if you do not counter false claims made by your opponent in the media, you will get pummeled in the polls.

That's total bunk. John Kerry lost in 2004 not because he was "swift boated"-- which assumes he was a brilliant campaigner and candidate, if it just weren't for those pesky war vets. No, Kerry got spanked in 2004 because he has the personality of the thimble.

Of course, everyone says the reason candidates go negative is the tactic, slimy as it is, works. That may be true in principle but it works in reverse of what Obama is trying to accomplish. Negative ads turn voters off and propel them to stay home on Election Day.

I know because I met a bunch of them this past weekend, while canvassing in a Catholic middle-class neighborhood outside Philadelphia. Every undecided voter I met told me they were incensed by the negative back-and-forth at a time of economic calamity. Even Harold, a U.S. Marines vet, registered Republican and longtime Philly native, who worries about high crime and high taxes, says he might be swayed to vote for Obama, but resents the fact that the "change" candidate has gone negative, just like every run-of-the-mill politician before him.

In fact, real "change" is staying positive in the face of a fusillade of attacks on your character and campaign. My extended family in upstate Wisconsin informs me they are fed up by the ugly attacks by both campaigns. Though they admit that McCain's broadsides are nastier, Obama's are cringe-worthy as well. If Obama wants to see his slim lead evaporate faster than credit on Wall Street, he should go negative. Why not try to win with your head held high. Don't take the Republican bait. Set an example for future politicians everywhere. Stay positive.

Comments

[Jenoah2008]

While journalists, investigators and pundits sleep America's legacy is being read by informed global viewers and listeners. This global audience has been impacted by our personal, private and public sector greed, collective collusion with appeals to or subliminal racism and denial of personal responsibility. Our astute analysts never include deep enough historic factors or financial practices by racialist actors in the market place. Democrats are accused of giving minorities opportunities to own or rent by extending government intervention in the economy as given in education and other social institutions where minorities were deliberately excluded or subjugated. The problem is not the opportunities provided but that racism went subversive. Racialism operated in private interracial economic exchanges and decision-making. Double-talking, self-deceiving greedy bankers, mortgage brokers, real estate salespersons, sellers, appraisers, credit reporting and hard-talking collection agencies developed an entire sub-prime culture geared to defraud the working poor, the uninformed and particularly at-risk minorities of housing, in the same way their academic counterparts have done in urban education. Deregulation expanded the game which swallowed even the non-minority middle class and new-monied lower-upper-class. The junk-values get-rich schemes swallowed and copied by global investors now fuel the economic whirlwind. Unconscionable rents will be the next unraveling propelled by the tightening economy. "Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall in it." God appears slow to act but hears the cries of the poor."

[Michale32086]

@Kassandra

}}}}}}}}}}}
It is not "negative" to tell the truth. I don't see Obama doing anything but respond to McCain's lies, which is as it should be.
{{{{{{{{{{{

Actually, it can still be negative campaigning, even if it is the truth...

Sorry, but those are the facts...

Michale.....

[urthsong1]

If the major news programs reporting on the Palin accusations stopped agitating with their visiting interviewees long enough to state flat out the facts about Palin's accusation, it would go a long way to setting things right. I recall the Swift Boat ads and book and how investigative reporters from Chicago were able to debunk virtually all of it with aplomb. But the facts had limited circulation. There are facts. There are opinions based on facts. Then there are the neo-con Republican "new realities", opinions based on lies. Liars should be called on it every time. I agree that reporting the facts about the Keating Five clearly relates to the same sort of banking fraud that McCain got himself into before. It demonstrates that McCain never learned any lesson on the pitfalls of de-regulation. There is nothing at all inappropriate about that given that there are many new young voters who do not know that history.

[S1m0n]

It works the opposite way, too:

People who don't want to vote will tell you it's because the candidates are 'just the same' or 'too negative!'. The reality is likely to be that they haven't voted in a decade.

[Ironfox]

As a child I was raised in a predominately Catholic suburb of Philly (Villanova) I attended private Catholic schools (Waldron Acadamy), (Devon Preparitory), The only African Americans I ever saw were the domestics riding the busses to and from work, and of course our own beloved Virginia, whom I think I loved more than my own career obsessed parents. If you look at the demographics of these areas the racial balance has NOT changed in the last forty years, and I fear, neither has the attitude. On the surface very liberal, under the vaneer they are not PLU (people like us).

[demofem]

I am scared for my country. If the kind of racism, lying and incitement to violence so blithely displayed by McCain and Palin is allowed to succeed, what kind of nation will be handing to our children? I'm just SICKENED by what is happening.

[Kassandra]

It is not "negative" to tell the truth. I don't see Obama doing anything but respond to McCain's lies, which is as it should be.

[jackwaddington]

G. W. said we needed to take democracy to the rest of he world. If this is democracy then no wonder people in other parts of the world don't want to join in. It has absolutely nothing to do with the will of the people but more to do with the stupidity of the people hence we've had G. W. for eight years. Can we get more stupid than that?????

[gevan]

The thing is that in our political system you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's always a lose-lose situation. Just try to outlast the other guys and you can be the last man standing like 1800, 1828, 1884 or 1980.

[JPHR]

This negative campaigning seems to be a US cultural thing. Winning seems to be everything. Political debate has been replaced by extreme partisanship.
Especially the Republicans seem to operate on the "end justifies any means". Problem with allowing this type of campaigning is that the real issues more or less become moot.
However within the context of this campaign McCain seems to have painted himself into a corner. By relying mostly on excessive negative campaigning McCain seems to have lost the opportunity to really promote his vision. At this point in time it is too late to change the message.
Also it is quite possible that the Republicans simply saw a campaign on issues as a lost case anyway. So that left no real other option than this negative campaigning.
The US would be better served with banning this type of campaigning altogether. Simply allow only self promotion on issues. Only limited highlighting of differences with the policies of the other parties would be acceptable. Anyway the US seems to be in for a lot more reform lately.

[stryker]

Nah, it's not a US thing. Look at campaigns in England and you'd think this was a love fest. ACtually, the worst spot I've seen, maybe because I'm next door in Pa., is New Jersey. Every commercial there, on both sides, makes one think there are only crooks in NJ. Quite rare to hear any commercial extolling why you should vote for someone, just why you shouldn't vote for the other guy. Sounds like a mob war out of The Sopranos.

[Ironfox]

In terms of New Jersy politics I think you hit the nail on the head, intended or not.
I used to own a restaurant in Wildwood and I know whom you have to deal with to stay in business.

[Artos]

JPHR,
Partisianship nothing, It's not about Partisianship, It's about survival. The Repubs have made it all about World Domination. I see them as no different than past Empire builders bent on conquering the world. They preach dogmatic ideology. This is not about mere partisianship it is what it is, an outright for survival.

[bokiluis]

Barack has run an honorable campaign and he has tried to stay above the fray.

But you expect the man to stand there and take the slime fest.

I have faith that he will defend himself and maintain his dignity.

John McCain has no dignity, never had. sarahpalin needs no words, she is a the picture of

"vulgar and vile".

I'm sorry dude, if you have been following this campaign, Barack has nothing to fear and should face

his enemies with strength and resolve!

[Indieguy]

Amen, Obama won't be pulled into the gutter where McCain resides but he will defend himself.

[Stringer32]

Obama should put something out there, it balances the coverage out. Instead of obsessing over Ayers for several days on end the media has to talk about keating and how the campaigns need to get back to the issues.

[fltnsplr]

Mr. Beehner, I must disagree with what you wrote..

If Obama consorts with terrorists (William Ayers) and McCain pals around with lobbyists (Charles Keating)...well, first of all, Obama did not know Ayers at the time of the bombings, nor did he engage in "terrorist activity" with Ayers when they did meet. However, McCain did engage in questionable dealings with Keating, and though McCain got off with a slap on the wrist, he nonetheless had financial dealings with Keating, who ended up in the Big House.

In his bid for the White House, however, McCain is currently employing well over a hundred lobbyists. Obama, doesn't employ any terrorists to help run his campaign, nor does he approve of such techniques.

I think your thesis is on slippery pavement here.

[demofem]

I completely agree. Sen. Obama served on a board intended to improve inner city education, with Ayers whose despicable acts took place long ago. Ayers had since become a professor and was honored by Chicago's mayor, for crying out loud; the board was also populated by Republicans. On the other hand, McCain did Keating's bidding, trying to get rid of S&L regulations. Keating ended up swindling thousands of people out of their life savings. There is no parity between the two subjects.

[quinn52]

To Mr. Beehner: Well, no not really. Look, we all hate mudslinging and muckraking in political campaigns (except maybe Mrs. Palin who seems to be positively gleeful about it), but when your adversary despises you and wants to hurt you - I mean really hurt you through character assassination or worse, you've got to do something. So you strike as decisively and forcefully as you can. Politics, like war, is hell, but some things are worth going through hell for - like, say, the United States of America.

So Barack says, "I won't through the first punch, but I will throw the last." It reminds me of something General Sherman wrote to Atlanta in 1864: "You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride."

If people want the mudslinging to stop, they should tell the ones who started it (McCain and his Rovian advisers) to stop - and admit that their determination to "go negative" began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

As for Obama; its about damned time that a Democrat showed some spine and stood up to the Republican bullies.

As for McCain; if you sow to the wind, you will reap the whirlwind!

[quinn52]

edit: "I won't throw the first punch, but I will throw the last."

[DickTater]

Mr Beehner,

please elaborate on how exactly B O is going negative?
I would guess you have a long and ugly list of B O negativity?
Or your wisconsin family has a long list?

No, mostly what you have is the CorpMedia always claiming Both Parties Do It whenever ReFoolagins are up to horrible tricks. Gore supposedly got all negative. Kerry supposedly got all negative, when actually we had witnessed the sleaziest campaigns known to americans, all propagated by the ReFoolagins. Same this time around, except we seem to have an especially cool cucumber running for the dems who has been undisputedly the cleanest campaigner we have ever seen. HRC threw the entire rightwing bathtub at him during the primaries and he stuck to his positive guns. He remarkably has done the same with mcPOW!

Mr Beehner, your independents are incredibly foolish and gullible people. They wouldn't still be on the fence if they weren't. They are just looking, desperately for anything to justify their noncommittal...and claiming that both sides are being negative is their cheap, unimaginative cop-out.