Beating the “System”

David Brooks wrote a good piece yesterday about the changes that have gone on in the McCain camp. It shows how McCain, the man who wanted to run a “maverick” campaign, has been forced to run a conventional campaign after all.

So many have expressed their disgust with McCain having taken the so-called “low road.” And others, like myself and Brooks, feel a sense of sadness that the old McCain has been pushed to the wayside.

But the article got me thinking about how hard it is to buck the “system” and also that candidates have to choose between just presenting ideas, and actually winning.

As Brooks shows, McCain did try to run a different campaign that amounted to very little:

McCain started his general-election campaign in poverty-stricken areas of the South and Midwest. He went through towns where most Republicans fear to tread and said things most wouldn’t say. It didn’t work. The poverty tour got very little coverage on the network news. McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama.

McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked. Obama vetoed the town meeting idea. The issue is not closed, but G.O.P. leaders are resisting a cross-party pick like Lieberman.

McCain and his advisers have been compelled to adjust to the hostile environment around them. They have been compelled, at least in their telling, to abandon the campaign they had hoped to run. Now they are running a much more conventional race, the kind McCain himself used to ridicule.

I do remember McCain’s tour to areas where Republicans fear to tread and the result was very much a yawn. As McCain has started throwing some elbows with more aggressive ads and campaigning, he has done better in the polls.

A lot of focus has been on McCain, but I am more interested in the so-called “system.” What does it say when a candidate might try to do the right thing and try to run a “civil” campaign and no one seems to be interested? What does it says that said candidate gets traction only when he goes negative?

Candidates are faced with two competing issues: trying to focus on an elevated campaign focusing on issues, and trying to win. A candidate can share ideas, and yet not gain enough enthusiasm to win. On the other side, one can focus on winning and have very little in the way of ideas (something that has been the hallmark of George W Bush).

I think we tend to say we want candidates to present us with the issues, but I think in reality, we are interested in who will win.

McCain of course, wants to win. He has tried to run the “elevated campaign” (though some will disagree) and the end was, he didn’t do a whole lot to inspire the populace.

So, what does it say about us when we are more interested when a candidate runs a “negative” campaign than a “positive” one?