Things that need to change: One: Opposition by scandal

[Lerkfish]

one thing that has bothered for some time now, and not just this primary, is the political landscape that has devolved to opposing a candidate, any candidate by ginning up scandal: real or imagined: against them.
The swift boat veterans for truth is a great example. I'm sure you can come up with some of your own. I'm not using this post to address individual uses of the strategy, I'm just talking about why the strategy generally needs to change.

the strategy, in a nutshell: find or capitalize on dirt against your opponent.

why is this wrong:
1. its lazy. instead of concentrating on your own policy or appealing to the voters about why your candidacy is vital to them, all it takes is a cheap PI and a camera and viola! you've got a campaign.
2. its counterproductive. Not only do you have to find or exploit or fabricate a scandal, you have to make sure it sticks in the MSM. Often, this means you or your surrogates have to keep catapulting the propaganda. Often this can be too obvious, and any advantage you may have gained is more than lost by being transparent about your motives.
3. It continues to prop up the false and dangerous notion that only saints can or should run for office. First, this is false because no one is truly a saint. Second, its dangerous because it means a voter either has to delude themselves to vote for someone or they are voting for the best liar.
4. It creates an ever escalating scandal war that becomes a war of attrition, in which both contestants are damaged.
5. It rewards the side with least hangups about what is moral or ethical with victory. In other words, the side that can throw mud THE BEST wins, but usually that's the side that doesn't see moral dilemnas in any situation.


Finally, the reason we as democrats need to stop embracing this strategy is, quite frankly, we aren't as good at it as the republicans. It would be like me getting into the ring with mike tyson. Sure, I could be determined, but one good punch is going lay me out flat.
Further, republican voters are very tolerant of this opposition by scandal, so it works better with them -- just as they are MORE forgiving afterwards for the victim of the scandal. So, in THEIR party, this is like a taser, sure some people die, but mostly its a smaller number. In OUR party, its like the ebola virus. It may take out your opponent permanently, and kill you, too since you were handling the virus to put it on them.

so why even do this? That's' why I'm saying we can and SHOULD steer away from this in the future.


thoughts?

[grasswire]

1. yes, and it insults our righteous heritage as Democrats

If any political body ever had a heritage to run on, it's Democrats. I have been advocating for years that the Democratic Party have a continuing program of educating Americans about the benefits Democrats have earned for citizens through blood, sweat, and tears. The "Thank a Liberal" idea should be writ large, so that every American knows what Democrats have made happen.