Politics as usual?

[From February 2004: A response to an email from my Democracy-minded friend Bill Shein. We were debating how rough-and-tough a Democrat's campaign should be. Looking back now, I don't think any Democrat henceforth will worry much about getting down in the dirt, given the utterly repulsive campaign against Kerry they launched a few weeks after I wrote this -- including the loathsome Swift Boat ads that falsely suggested Kerry had made up the incident reports for his medals.]


Well -- I don't know that I'm arguing for "politics as
usual" as in perpetuating more of the bitter
partisanship that exists in Congress or abhorrent ads
that use race or cynically manipulate people with
wedge issues and personal attacks. I'm all for raising
the level of debate. But nor do I think Democrats
should try to look beyond their opponents when GOP
operators score points with aggressive, ugly
campaigning, while we sort of look gauzily into a
better future and then get our asses kicked and trudge
back out into the wilderness feeling noble about ourselves.

I'm talking about the sort of rapid-response
operation that Clinton's campaign ran in '92 (see "The
War Room") that was smart and fast about anticipating
what the other side would do and didn't let it sit out
there for the echo chamber to amplify, un-addressed,
for days. You don't have to get into the dirt, you
just have to aggressively engage your opponent when he
slanders you or tries to define the terms of debate.
You answer a charge quickly. And yes, you run a tough
campaign and occasionally try to get your opponent on
the defensive. I think the difference between you and
me is that you believe candidates usually lose their
soul somehow in that process, and I don't -- or at
least, I believe you don't have to. There is a
principled way to run a presidential campaign that
doesn't allow your opponent to run the table.

I don't think I've scoffed at Democratic reforms, at
least I didn't mean to... I guess I would say somebody
who has to deal day to day with the realities of
Republican congressional majorities might have the
best idea of what we'll actually be able to do over
the next 5-10 years in this country, and I can't look
farther than that. I'm not a visionary. I think people
have to try to use the driving fuel of their ideals
and principles without falling into Ralph Nader's
"Let's lose the next five elections building our Third
Way so that by 2030, things are finally better in this
country." That's pretty much unilateral disarmament.