« Lower the drinking age to 18?
A Cone of Silence Without Legs? »



Beating the “System”

August 20th, 2008
By DENNIS SANDERS

Print Print

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?



This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 20th, 2008 at 2:20 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Columnists, John McCain. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    You're completely right when you say some will disagree about McCain's "elevated campaign".

    He's running a campaign right out of the Rove handbook.

    You're apparently sorry about this. You also seem sorry that Bush offered "very little in the way of ideas".

    Do you plan to reward the party that does these things that make you feel sorry?
    • ^
    • v
    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?

    I think you've hit on something here that I (for one) never really considered. But it makes perfect sense. As the media saying goes, "If it bleeds it leads." So no wonder negative advertising works. And no wonder positive advertising doesn't -- unless of course, you can be portrayed as a phenomenon. In which case, that's all you will be portrayed as. And that, of course, makes you different. And that, of course, makes you worthy of criticism and distrust.

    Suddenly I'm thinking about that Travolta flick, "Phenomenon". I think its central theme might apply here.
    • ^
    • v
    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?


    It says he's a lousy candidate, his people realized it, and fell back on the tactics used by the GOP for decades.

    One might also ask, what does it say when a candidate runs a clean, issues based, above board campaign and he out raises his opponent by almost 2 to 1 and leads in most polling?
    • ^
    • v
    Sorwell,

    I don't know if I would go as far as saying McCain is running a Rovian campaign.

    Yes, I am sorry about both of the things you have addressed, but if you think that I am going to vote for the Dems this time around, you would be wrong. The GOP does have many problems, but I just am not persuaded by the Democrats answers. It comes down to the better of two evils, then I will go to the GOP.

    I know that isn't the answer you want, but it's the answer I have come to.
    • ^
    • v
    Dennis, which particular issues from the Dems do you find unbearable? I am genuinely interested. I am probably on the other side from you. I find the Dems to have tons warts and policies I disagree with, but ultimately for me the Republican Party remains too tied to the likes of James Dobson who represents, I believe, the worst of American politics. Perhaps that comment takes things to far afield, but I am wondering what on the Democratic side is so horrible from your point of view.
    • ^
    • v
    You're the one out here complaining about the tactic used by your own party.

    And blaming that on the system.

    Go ahead and reward the party that does these things that make you feel sorry.
    • ^
    • v
    Is there anything that the highly principled Maverick (r) hasn't flip flopped on during this campaign to get elected?

    What is worse? That McCain would change any of his positions to get elected or that he hasn't changed but that his campaign is not under his control?
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Lower the drinking age to 18?
A Cone of Silence Without Legs? »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.