Becoming the thing you hate

[TayTay]

I am struck by comments both in this group and elsewhere on DU about how much people hate the negative campaigning in the Democratic primary. The nature of the debate and the negativity of it is stealing energy and optimism from this race and down ticket races as well.

I wonder how some people are going to be able to go on when the primaries end. I have read comments from people from all the campaigns that cross a line and I wonder how they are going to be able to cross back and unite as Democrats. I have read of groups of supporters, again from different campaigns, who proudly proclaim that they will never vote for the eventual winner. I have heard some people say that they will actively work against the loser of the primary to make sure they lose their next race for the Senate or any other office.

Do people listen to themselves? This is so depressing. It sounds not like the tough talk of a campaign but like sore losers or sore winners who are putting their own personal interests above their own political goals. They can see no further than this primary. They are living in a bubble in which the only thing that matters is this primary. I find this to be one of the saddest things I have seen in politics. This primary race will end soon. What happens next?

Democrats as a group strongly denounced the idea of "swiftboating" a candidate. This ugly version of politics doesn't just demand a winner, it demands that the political loser in a campaign be broken, damaged and their entire career be dismissed and derided. That is the ugliness of "swiftboating." I denounce it because it corrupts the political process itself. This corrosive type of campaigning has horrific and damaging effects down to the very local level when good people decide that they can't put their family and friends through a run for local offices like School Committee seats because it could get too ugly. This threatens the very roots of American democracy which depends on people standing up and being active in politics.

There is a false argument out there that Democrats need to be just like the Republicans in order to beat them. I strongly disagree. There is a difference between fighting hard for a campaign and doing anything in order to win. I have no faith and no desire to join with people who believe that only the ends matter and that ethics and common decency are "quaint" notions that serious people laugh at. I will not become the thing I hate. I want to be able to unite with fellow Democrats at the end of this primary and work together for a better American. I do not want to see good people with great records of working for great causes beaten and bloodied and disdained. That is the thing I hate. I won't do it.

I end this post with an anecdote about the price of your own soul and your own values:

George Bernard Shaw once found himself at a dinner party, seated beside an attractive woman. "Madam," he asked, "would you go to bed with me for a thousand pounds?" The woman blushed and rather indignantly shook her head.

"For ten thousand pounds?" he asked. "No. I would not." "Then how about fifty thousand pounds?" he continued.

The colossal sum gave the woman pause, and after further reflection, she coyly replied: "Perhaps." "And if I were to offer you five pounds?" Shaw asked.

"Mr. Shaw!" the woman exclaimed. "What do you take me for!" "We have already established what you are," Shaw calmly replied. "Now we are merely haggling over the price."

I fear too many Democrats across the blogosphere are merely haggling over the price. That cannot be the legacy of 2008. It is wrong.

[beachmom]

1. On the money, Tay. On the money.

What is the most troubling is not the campaigns, but quite a lot of Americans, who are not even that interested in politics, now embrace the notion that "the politics of personal destruction" is perfectly fine and should be used in conversing with friends about politics. They learned this from Fox News, right wing talk radio, and even the snarky traditional media, which peddle a softer version of personal attacks. When I protest and say that this is not right, that these are real people, their response is: "Well, then they shouldn't have run for president." Honestly, I am troubled by any "swiftboating", even against Republicans. I don't like lying and I don't like sleeziness. The Democrats are not as bad as the Republicans, but by golly they are trying to be as bad.

Sometimes I wonder if the Clintons aren't suffering from a sort of PTSD from all the insidious right wing attacks on them in the '90s. Many of the attacks were beyond cruel, and utterly untrue. Even the ones that were true were overdone and crossed the line in interfering with their personal lives. But in "fighting back", they learned to be like their enemy, and this is even more apparent now. Obama and his supporters are at risk of suffering from the same PTSD, when you start thinking only in terms of GETTING THEM AT ALL COSTS for the pain the attacks have caused to Obama and his family. But it really is about resisting the temptation of "going to the dark side of the force", and we must struggle with it every day. I think Obama thinks this because he has said it before: you can hear in spite of it all empathy toward Hillary and everything she was put through in the '90s. I read that he was quite sympathetic when she broke down in NH. It does not matter that the empathy has apparently not been returned -- the point is to stay true to yourself and remember why you got into the struggle in the first place.

Yesterday, there was a diary with a title "Who is Behind Spreading the E-mail Smears of Obama". It made the Rec List, but many voiced disappointment that they didn't learn the answer to the headline. The diarist said it was "right wing nuts" who had replied back to his e-mail to debunk the lies. Of course, the REAL answer to the question was staring everyone in the face: WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE are spreading the e-mail smears of Obama. Now someone is coming up with the lies, but that is less the problem than the SPREADING of the lies. And the spreader of the lies is not Scaiffe or Rush Limbaugh or Fox News or right wing bloggers. No, the spreader of the lies are the ones clicking forward, and many of the people doing that could be friends, neighbors, and even family.

I do not know how to root out the rot of hatred in this country. But I do know that even if we Democrats cleaned up our own act, that that is not good enough. I want the Republicans to do so as well. I welcome a debate between our world view and theirs. I may even agree with them from time to time. But when have we been able to have that debate what with all the noise of personal attacks on our candidates? I had wished that McCain might be up for that debate, but his ambition will allow him to look the other way when the base of his party does the dirty work. He'll feign annoyance, but then allow them to do their evil deeds, like that GOP ad in NC. Until the American people make the decision of "No, not this time" and STOP FORWARDING THE E-MAILS or gossiping about the lies at the water cooler, we're still going to be struggling with this.

And unfortunately, the liberal blogosphere is tugging back and forth between just fighting fire with fire (highly unhelpful) or heeding Obama's calls to rise above.

[ladym55]

2. Several thoughts here ....

You have struck a sensitive chord here. In Ohio, I got a front-row seat to the Clinton "kitchen-sink" campaign against Obama. In a few short weeks I went from admiring HRC but preferring Obama on issues to being disturbed to despising HRC and all she stood for. I am a Democrat BECAUSE I believe we can be better than lying and spinning and swiftboating another human being. I voted in the primary for the person I thought would BEST govern our country. That being said, if all the stars collide and 2 + 2 suddenly equals 6 and HRC becomes the nominee, she would get my vote. Why? Because I look at the big picture and what it would cost our nation to have 4 more years of corrupt and incredibly stupid government.

The HRC people I know don't think as I do. I'm not sure they'd vote for Obama. It bothers me deeply that people I worked with on the JK campaign in 2004 are suddenly OKAY with HRC's campaign. They shrug and say, "He needs to be strong for the GE. This is MILD." (And then they go crazy when someone in the MSM refers to the Clinton dynasty ... "That's not right!! That's not FAIR!!!")

This comment especially affected me:

This corrosive type of campaigning has horrific and damaging effects down to the very local level when good people decide that they can't put their family and friends through a run for local offices like School Committee seats because it could get too ugly. This threatens the very roots of American democracy which depends on people standing up and being active in politics.

Someone I knew--a mom with two kids, a university instructor, and someone with a passion for education and the environment--ran for state senate against a well-oiled Republican with no ethics. I got to see her face plastered over the TV and accused of crime and corruption ... none of which was true. Her children got to see that and live with that. Will she run for office again? I don't know. Heck, his campaign even harassed two retirees who were canvassing for her.

And right now I'm reading a book by Connie Schultz, wife of Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown. It's about the 2006 campaign and how much all these hate-filled attacks are felt by real people trying to do good things for our country.

Being snarky means we don't have to be informed about the issues. We don't have to discuss things like reasonable adults. And we don't somehow get that we are doing these things to real people with real feelings. I'm so very sorry that the lesson the Clintons learned in the 1990s wasn't compassion for those being attacked unfairly, but rather how to engage in the same tactics.

[beachmom]

3. Your Hillary supporter friends are blowing hot air. You're telling me

liberal white women -- women who are proud to vote for the first potential woman president are going to vote for McCain? A guy who has CONSISTENTLY fought against a woman's right to choose. Nope. They're just mad right now, and true a few will stay home or vote for McCain out of spite. But the MAJORITY will come to their senses by November.

I don't agree with everything said in this episode of NOW, but it is still worth watching:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/418/index.html

Willie Brown made it clear that 27% of Hillary supporters are NOT going to cross over to McCain. He said a few might just like it has been in every contested primary before (I came across a Kossak the other day who admitted he did not vote in '04), but that those folks are fixated on personality, not principle or policy. I tend to agree with that. I don't like Hillary and think she lacks character -- but I know she, like Obama, will nominate liberal judges, thinks our health care system is broken and we should move to universal health care, will start withdrawing troops from Iraq, change the tax structure so the super wealthy pay their fair share, try to mend relations with countries around the world, etc. Why is that the case? Because she's a Democrat. Marginally, true, but a Democrat.

[ladym55]

6. I live in Ohio, remember

So some of my women friends aren't quite so liberal. They loved JK, but when it comes to voting for a BLACK guy, umm, err, well ... They just aren't sure if the country is "ready" for an African-American as president. I was rather shocked to hear that. And technically I should say, harrumph, YOU are a racist and walk away. But these women have all been there for me personally when my life has been awful, so walking away isn't really an option for me.

My definitely liberal white women friends who love Hillary are sharp enough to know that SCOTUS is more important than hurt feelings over Hillary.

In 2004, there was a group of six of us who had NEVER participated in a campaign before, and we worked together every weekend on the Kerry campaign. We got very close, but we are very divided now. I think we can only count on three of them to vote for Obama in the fall. And that is sad. :(

[sandnsea]

4. If the supers hand the election to Hillary

I won't vote for her at all. As it is, I've got nothing positive to say about her because I think she's a liar and I think this campaign has proven that beyond all doubt. What is stunning to me is the number of people who appear to be willing to brush that aside for the sake of "party". I'm not going to pretend she is something that she isn't, and I continue to be baffled by people who do.

[karynnj]

5. I was horrified a few years ago when someone posted a CNN article

where Wolfson spoke of the lesson from 2004 being that swiftboating works and that meant that we should do it. I was horrified then but naively thought he was speaking of what we had to do to the Republicans. The earliest evidence that they really did intend this was when an anonymous HRC aide questioned what McCain did as a POW (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152006/news/nationalnews/hills_so_sorry_over_viet_slap_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm ) Just as with later comments on Obama from Saheen and Kerrey, there was an apology. Think how many apologies there have been.

What really makes me angry is that the story of 2006 COULD have been that swiftboating backfired. All the vets that Kerry and others defended from swiftboating won. In the case of Patrick Murphy, the incumbent might have had a chance of winning had he NOT swiftboated from earlier polling results. In fact, that might become the conventional wisdom if Obama beats HRC - as seems likely. Look at what has happened to her and Bill's favorability numbers. She is being punished for what she is doing. I suspect, but can't prove that those negatives will be extremely hard to erase. The fact that she likely will not be the candidate is good, it would be ironic if at the point the public moves against the slice and dice nasty politics - we were the ones seen using them.

If HRC gets the nomination, that swiftboating is wrong may also be the conventional wisdom - because I seriously do NOT think that we can effectively swiftboat a Republican - and especially not McCain. Their swiftboating in 2004 worked to the degree it did because they had the echo chamber and because the MSM played along. We do not have an effective echo chamber like the Republicans - they have almost all teh radio time and a higher percentage of the cable airtime. The media may like McCain less than in 2000, but they will protect him as they NEVER did Kerry. Any attempt to swiftboat could backfire and backfire badly.

I really think we are at a point where it is so bad, the pendulum has to turn.