When You Start Throwing Mud, Everyone Gets Dirty

I struggle with this question. If the rules are that you don't do certain things in a war, and the other side is doing them anyway and you are enduring huge losses, do you continue to follow the established rules, which are there for good reason, or do you match dirty tactic with dirty tactic? All's fair in love, war, and politics? Certainly there are lines we shouldn't cross even if the other side does them. Torture comes to mind.

What if the other side breaks the established (if unwritten) rules in a political contest, what should you do? I used to think the answer was to hold your head high and do the right thing, to not go into the gutter with the other side. That the system would work, truth would prevail and all of that. But now I wonder if that's correct. Perhaps a mutually assured destruction strategy would be better. Make it absolutely clear that any tactic will not only be matched, it will be exceeded. Make the response so costly that the other side won't even consider the option. The problem, of course, is this is not a credible threat and short of finding a way to make it credible, which involves the unpleasant task of wallowing in the mud with the other side, I'm not sure what the answer is:

McCain, Obama, and the Inherent Advantage of Caring More About Ends Than Means, by Robert Reich: We’ve been here before: The Republican attack machine at full throttle, spewing lies in best-selling books, on Fox News, on talk radio. The mainstream media reporting on the controversy, thereby giving it more air time and squeezing out the Democrats’ affirmative message. Followed by accusations by Democrats that Republicans are playing unfairly. Responded to by smiling shrugs and winks from Republicans, who say Democrats can’t take the heat or can’t enjoy a joke or are out of touch with average Americans who are concerned about whatever it is the Republicans are lying about. This ignites a furious debate among Democrats about how negative they should go against the Republican. “If we use their tactics, we’ll lose the moral high ground,” say the Democratic doves. “If we don’t, we’ll lose the war,” say the Democratic hawks. The debate is never fully resolved. The Democrats sort of fight back but don’t have the heart to do to Republicans what Republicans do to them. And so it goes.

The underlying problem is that Democrats care about means as well as ends, while Republicans care almost exclusively about ends and will use any means to get there. The paradox lies deeper. For most Democrats, the means are part of the ends. We want an electoral process that eschews the lying and cheating we’ve witnessed since Richard Nixon’s dirty tricks. If we use their tactics, we undermine our own goal, violating one of the very things that distinguishes us from them. Yet if we don’t stoop to their level, how can we prevail in a system that allows – even rewards – such lying and cheating? ...

Democrats also care about the rule of law – adherence to legal norms, rules, and precedents – as an end in itself. Republican administrations view the law as a potential obstacle to achieving particular ends. Anyone trying to chronicle the Bushie’s disregard for the rule of law is quickly overwhelmed with examples, such as violating civil service laws to fill up the executive branch with political hacks; riding roughshod over constitutional laws in firing federal prosecutors; wiretapping Americans in clear violation of law; holding prisoners of war without charge, in violation of international law; using torture. Democrats, once in power, regard laws as serious constraints on that power. (When I was secretary of labor, the department’s lawyers would instruct me about what I could not do because I was unauthorized to do it, rather than how I might reinterpret or bend the laws in order that I could. The lawyers who work in the Bush administration do the opposite.)

Those who are willing to do anything to achieve their ends will always have a tactical advantage over those who regard the means as ends in themselves. The question posed in this election, and, one hopes, by an Obama administration, is whether the moral authority generated by the latter position is itself enough to overcome these odds.

Comments

[don]

One of the few pieces by Robert that I agree with, except that it may be a wee bit of an exaggeration to imply all republicans are scoff-laws and all democrats are law abiding. Wasn't LBJ a democrat?

[TigerPaw]

Perhaps if the Democrats made a public announcement that if they get in they will declassify, open, and otherwise publicize every dirty little secret of the Bush administration, leaving absolutely nothing out of the light. Names named, bank accounts publicized, helpers in the media revealed, every nasty sordid detail brought out.

Perhaps then the cockroaches will be busy enough setting up foreign addresses for themselves to have something better to do.

I know it won't actually work - but would be nice to see the slime running for cover for a change.

[esb]

This election will be similar in character to the 2000 Republican South Carolina primary.

McCain will play the role of Bush. (The evil)

Obama will play the role of McCain. (The good)

In this morality play the evil will attempt to convince the electorate that the good is the evil.

One Republican "independent group" funder/operative told me that when he is finished with his work the American people will view the Obamas as though they were the founders of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

It is going to be a rough couple of months.

[RW]

If one wishes to create a dichotomy then framing the issue as Reich and other Democrats tend to do, as one of mud slinging or restraint, is frankly not useful: Try framing the issue as courage vs. fear or attack vs. defense (remembering these are appearances as much as substance) and then decide what you wish to do.

There is more than one way to win a cockfight. For example, McCain has a long history of self-serving that includes instances of venality but what is most readily available is a huge library of video, audio and textual material because above all else McCain has been a relentless seeker of celebrity; e.g., his creds in the Internet Movie Database alone include more than 200 entries (you read that right and we're just talking his showbiz vita here; no wonder he missed so many Senate roll calls it's a wonder he ever showed up to vote).

So, shorter version, there is a truckload of McCain out there and many of those McCains reverse, contradict or render idiotic the current McCain's stances (to the degree those stances could be said to be coherent or consistent) so a steady diet of McCain A vs. McCain B should suffice; let him kill himself.

[hari]

Mark -*All's fair in love, war and politics?*

I love your introspection on Ghandian principle of means and ends.

I'm going to really personalize it - in order to make a point. Because otherwise Marks introspection (above) cannot be adequately answered. Reich's idea of means and ends don't fit my paradigm - so I shall simply overlook him. [He's any way winking his way - to a job in BOs Admin.]

In love affair(s) I was never (really) lost having been a product of a great Matriach. Respect of the other person - irrespective of gender - is a critical factor in ameliorating conflict situations and/or arguments.

In war and politics, the situation is not simple. [Like we see right now in Georgia....] Truth has a way of defying the committed ideologues. Current US puditry and polemics reflects upon this low level of national cultural disposition. My knowledge of US politics assumes that the deficiency is more or less a true reflection of US-Centric view of the world and nothing to do (may be) with *means* and *ends*.

The country is declining, for whatever reason, to be able to stand for its great ideas and achievements....

BO is between the devil and the deep blue (Hawaiian!) sea. He simply doesn't have it in his makeup to do what his opponent is trying to do to him. In the end of the day, BO will certainly win (I trust!) not because he's the best or better candidate for the WH - he's simply head-over-heels above his opponent in terms of intellect and personality and the audacity of hope and change.

Mark is right - if you have all those (winning) qualities - is it fair to be bullied by a craven Marine looking for a head-on bruising contact?

In love - never! Smile and overlook the incident. Love is endearing and fulfilling when administered (yes!) in stages.

In war and politics, the gamesmanship is to *win* the argument or war. However stupid or irrelevant the stages thru which the argument follows, the end result counts. BO is still learning to cope with the intellect of a Marine soldier who was also *an enemy combatant* and *prisoner of war*. The end result of the process is not endearing to either side - but the battle is fair game - endurance test for BO!

[save_the_rustbelt]

The idea that the Dems are saints and the GOP are sinners is a bit of a stretch - witness Mark Penn, James Carville, Terry McCauliffe, blah blah blah.

The Democrats need to learn a simple truth - don't take a knife to a gun fight.

[anne]

"The underlying problem is that Democrats care about means as well as ends, while Republicans care almost exclusively about ends and will use any means to get there.

"Democrats also care about the rule of law – adherence to legal norms, rules, and precedents – as an end in itself. Republican administrations view the law as a potential obstacle to achieving particular ends...."

Care to show some evidence, any evidence?

[robertdfeinman]

Time to trot out another plug for psychologist Robert Altemyer's work on "right wing authoritarians" again.

The leadership of the GOP belongs to this classification, and yes, for them, ends justify means. The vast majority of those who still call themselves "conservatives" or Republicans have no idea how far the leadership has drifted from the Eisenhower, Main Street Republican model.

Unfortunately, there seems no way to counter these authoritarian leaders nicely, the worst of them are sociopaths. So some amount of strong response will be needed. It will at least give the cowardly bullies among them some pause.

Read Altemeyer's book, it is available online, for free at his web site:
TheAuthoritarians.com

says...

The answer that the behavioral econ crowd will give you would be that it depends on (a) your measure of when vindication has occurred and (b) your need for future interaction with that other party. To address (b), that is to say, if there is a need for future bipartisan effort to any extent (because you don't have 67 senate votes, etc etc) then you need some amount of make-nice left over. If you don't need any room for make-nice, then why bother. To address (a), it depends on your definition of vindication, since telling the truth and doing the right thing might not be recognized as a mitzvah for decades. If you require your rewards to occur within the next election cycle only, perhaps telling the truth and doing the right thing are not going to rank high in you #$%&-ing utility function.

[piglet]

"don't take a knife to a gun fight."

Don't you remember "The Magnificent Seven"?

[hari]

Shakespeare: *Sweet are the uses of adversity*!

[hari]

Republican Democracy is not interested in moral issues or means and ends debate. It's fundamentally irrelevant to their universe of power and authority.

So, by introducing moral introspection, you're simply defying the logic of their argument; namely, power (literally) grows out of the barrel of a gun ( not bread and butter issues).

Liberal education philosophy is the culprit here, me thinks.

[anne]

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/Comedy/asyoulikeit/asyoulikeit.2.1.html

1600

As You Like It
By William Shakespeare

Act II. Scene I.

The Forest of Arden.

Enter DUKE SENIOR, AMIENS, and two or three Lords, like foresters

DUKE SENIOR

Now, my co-mates and brothers in exile,
Hath not old custom made this life more sweet
Than that of painted pomp? Are not these woods
More free from peril than the envious court?
Here feel we but the penalty of Adam,
The seasons' difference, as the icy fang
And churlish chiding of the winter's wind,
Which, when it bites and blows upon my body,
Even till I shrink with cold, I smile and say
'This is no flattery: these are counsellors
That feelingly persuade me what I am.'
Sweet are the uses of adversity,
Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head;
And this our life exempt from public haunt
Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones and good in every thing.
I would not change it.

AMIENS

Happy is your grace,
That can translate the stubbornness of fortune
Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

[ken melvin]

The understanding that if you do unto others what they did unto you then you are no better is certainly a good reason for laws and their enforcement; perhaps the genesis. The reality seems to be that sometimes society has to make the scofflaws understand that it is to their, the offender's, advantage to obey the rules by coming down on them very hard indeed. So, given the makeup of this Congress and the USSC, the dems may need to help the rethugs appreciate the desirable of a set of rules and the good reasons for obeying them. Might suggest such as Gingrich, Rove and Cheney as a good places to start with an unrelenting assault; one that herds their media toadies right along with them and gives no quarters.

[hari]

Anne - Thanks for *As you like it*.

[2slugbaits]

Isn't it time to treat voters like adults even if they aren't? If voters want to believe every halfwit idea that comes out of McCain's mouth, then how far out of my way should I go to protect stupid voters from themselves? The main demographic supporting McCain is the elderly. If McCain wins and acts on his plan to gut Social Security, should economically comfortable liberals try to stop McCain or would it be better to just let grandma get what she voted for? If voters in Kansas and Mississippi consistently vote against their interests and then expect the rest of the country to bail them out with generous subsidies, should Democrats take the attitude that those states messed their beds, now let them lie in their mess? I think that's the bigger question and not whether one should roll around in the gutter with your opponent.

[Julio]

As long as the basic assumption is that throwing mud works (and "you are enduring huge losses") then the argument will be skewed towards wallowing in the mud too.

If throwing mud works, and you have a nuclear mud-weapon ("Make the response so costly that the other side won't even consider the option.") then why not use it to begin with?

Any solution will have to make the act of throwing mud, itself, backfire.

[macburger]

The question posed in this election, and, one hopes, by an Obama administration, is whether the moral authority generated by the latter position is itself enough to overcome these odds.

The only question poised is what kind of morals the voters have. Those are based on beliefs, not reason.

Reich is simply making up the "rational man", one who reasons. Economists are fixated about this so called "rational" man, and this idea has done, and will do much more damage till it gets discarded.

People believe what they want to believe, as long as it benefits them. This benefit can be just the ability to act superior; some people are willing to suffer financial losses just to strut; just to say "F*** you". Everything is not rational, or monetary.

No one discards beliefs willingly, unless their belief results in pain, or they are forced to.

That the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition... all this was firmly and truly believed, (because slavery benefited the believers;) Until the crap got beaten out of the believers.

Even after that, for 100 years (1864-1964), they still persisted, just for self-justification, bragging rights and strutting. Some still do so.

There were no questions about 'where are the good Germans' till after the war. Would that question even be asked if the victors turned out to be the Germans?

Does anyone ask about "where were the good palefaces"?

[Eric Dewey]

Is it ever the case that the ends justify the means? What would those circumstances be?

Mark mentions torture - a tactic that McCain is intimately familiar with, and one that, although it has consistently been proven to be ineffective and unreliable, continues to have its strong supporters.

I think of this as a question in relative values: if I'm willing to demean the ends I'm pursuing, then I'm willing to use questionable means to a degree that is proportional to my willingness to demean my ultimate purpose.

But Mark's question, and Reich's, is really about situations where I'm just not willing to demean the ends. Then the question becomes whether I'm willing to sacrifice the achievement of my ends in order to preserve their moral integrity.

And that, indeed, seems to be the question facing the US in this election: to what degree are we willing to continue financing our elite national lifestyle by engaging in the questionable means of unilateral military interventions, unprincipled deficit spending, undocumented and/or predatory lending practices, and a bogus "market-based" economy that in reality is socialism for the rich?

My support for Obama, meaning my willingness to engage financially or otherwise on his behalf as part of the body politic, is in direct proportion to his ability to achieve the Presidency without using demeaning negative tactics. My vote is his regardless, but not my support.

Needless to say, McCain has already forfeited my support.

[save_the_rustbelt]

piglet:

Every scene.

Obama is no Yul Brenner. Or Steve McQueen.

[dissent]

We need to protect stupid voters from themselves, unless we plan to leave the country if McCain wins.

It's not simply a question of whether or not to fling mud. It's a question of analyzing the basis of McCain's appeal to his base, and attacking him in such a way as to lessen his appeal.

It's essential to undermine the trust Americans often have in him as a 'maverick' and independent thinker.

There are lots of lines of attack.
- Ties to lobbyists. (E.g recent fundraiser with Abramoff buddy Ralph Reed).
- Flip flops, about everything he says matters to him.
- Elitism, his money, his rich wife, his view of life from that position making him less likely to understand most Americans.
- Bullying, impulsive, aggressive temperament - inappropriate for the presidency.
- Calling his wife a **** in front of the press. Offering to auction her off at a motorcycle rally.
- Continuing Republican economic policies of mass destruction. Ties to Phil Gramm.
- Explore Keating 5 role. I understand he admitted wrongdoing.
- Explore personal life - the way his first marriage ended was a travesty.

Push all this out into the public eye - and there will be blood in the water.

[dissent]

Obama has been hurt by McCain's attacks.

Barack Obama's public image has eroded this summer amid a daily onslaught of attacks from Republican rival John McCain, leaving the race for the White House statistically tied, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released today.

Far more voters say McCain has the right experience to be president, the poll found. More than a third have questions about Obama's patriotism.
The survey also illustrates some of the campaign's racial undercurrents as the Illinois senator strives to become the first African American president. Most voters say they know at least some people who feel uneasy about electing a black president; 17% say the country is not ready to do so.

link http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll20-2008aug20,0,5506138.story

[Had Enough]

We are talking about people responsible for 500000-1000000 dead and 4000000 pushed out of their homes in Iraq, not to mention a long list of economic and social ills in the US. And feeding the Constitution to a paper shredder into the bargain. And you guys are arguing philosophy.

There are only three things important in this election. They are: win, win, win.

[2slugbaits]

dissent,

We need to protect stupid voters from themselves,

Why? Isn't this a case of the economists bogeyman, Moral Hazard? I'll do fine regardless of who wins or loses. The people who likely to be hurt the most by a McCain victory are precisely that people that seem most inclined to vote for him; viz., the elderly and downscale blue collar whites. Those are the folks that will see their Social Security benefits cut. Those are the folks that will see their economic prospects diminish even further. And those are the folks who will pay the price as their sons and daughters come home on their shields after getting blown up somewhere in Godforsakenistan.

[dissent]

Negative attacks WORK:

More striking than the head-to-head matchup, however, is the drop in Obama's favorable rating in the run-up to his selection of a running mate and the Democratic National Convention next week in Denver.

Obama's favorable rating has sunk to 48% from 59% since the last Times/Bloomberg poll in June. At the same time, his negative rating has risen to 35% from 27%.

By comparison, McCain's ratings have hardly budged during the same period: 46% of voters have a positive feeling about him; 38% give him negative ratings.

"All the negative attacks from the McCain campaign seem to have been paying off," said Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus, who oversaw the survey.

same link as above.

I criticize the Obama campaign for their slow response. They didn't learn from the character assassination of Kerry and they should have. This may be the beginning of Obama's defeat. I hope not.

All those of you who would refrain from slinging mud because you don't want the hands of your candidate to be dirty really should get a clue. I am truly afraid of a McCain presidency.

[dissent]

dissent,

We need to protect stupid voters from themselves,

Why? Isn't this a case of the economists bogeyman, Moral Hazard? I'll do fine regardless of who wins or loses.

I guess my boat's been rocked, I don't feel immune. After the tech bust, for a period there, my income was down 90%. I have a son as well, and concern for his future.

I am, in fact, exploring EU options, as my s.o, qualifies for a certain citizenship. I see immigration as a hardship, I don't want to, but it may be necessary, to protect myself and my family from the consequences of American decline (moral and economic).

Not everyone has this option. I am shocked that you would seriously suggest that you would not be impacted by a McCain win. Have you heard of the energy crisis? Global warming? The financial crisis? Iran? I mean, what planet are you on - seriously.

[ken melvin]

In a subplot that William would've appreciated: seems there is a move to usurp the democratic party by those who call themselves 'progressives'. Further, it seems apparent that the takeover is of utmost importance. One might conclude that the 'progressives' don't even care very much for dems in general and not at all for the working class. And, all along I thought the stories about latte sipping, Volvo driving yuppies were something the rethugs made up.

[RW]

"...energy crisis? Global warming? The financial crisis? Iran? ..."

How about a return to the cold war and a completely right-wing Supreme Court?

Those who saw the Saddleback 'conversations' or read a transcript may recall that McCain was so eager to discuss the ultra-conservative nominations he would make (and the moderate justices he would love to get rid of) that he jumped the gun in the interview; this coincidentally revealed he knew the question was on the menu too of course but what's a bit of cribbing between friends, eh.

Going ex-pat may soften the hellish consequences of a McCain victory but only for a little while I think; if you've got enough investment income at least you'll get a tax break.

I sure do hope Obama can bust a serious move on the wrinkled, old white-haired dude after the convention, either that or find a VP who can.

[gordon]

Prof. Thoma: "Certainly there are lines we shouldn't cross even if the other side does them. Torture comes to mind".

Actually, no, torture isn't the same as weapons which might be used in a military context. Matching weapon with weapon has a long history in warfare, going back to the Pope's unsuccessful attempt to ban the crossbow during the Middle Ages, the use of gas and torpedoes in WWI, and most recently the use of nuclear weapons. The history of warfare shows that a weapon which gives one side an advantage will be adopted by everybody regardless of whether it's initially condemned as "unfair" or "ungentlemanly". But torture isn't in that category, because torture isn't a weapon like the ones I mentioned, it's a terror tactic. Using torture goes in the same basket as shooting villagers in response to sabotage or outright mass murder in order to impose "order" or to achieve "ethnic cleansing". Historically, these tactics tend to arouse both fear and loathing, and the net result is just as likely to be the hardening of opposition as it is to achieve submission. That's why atrocity stories have so often been used in wartime propaganda; they arouse hatred of the enemy.

We can, however, learn something from the military analogy. Weapons such as the crossbow, the submarine and torpedo and more recently the Improvised Explosive Device have in common their use by poorer, militarily unsophisticated people against well-equipped (in a conventional sense) and professional soldiers. That is the fundamental reason why they have historically aroused so much animosity among those conventional forces - they enable an armed struggle which otherwise would be impossible, a struggle of the poor and ill-equipped against wealthy and well-equipped adversaries. The military analogy therefore doesn't lead us to consider whether contemporary US Democrats should support torture or not, it leads us to consider whether they should engage in class warfare or not. To do that doesn't imply options like the ones dissent mentioned, like "Calling his wife a **** in front of the press. Offering to auction her off at a motorcycle rally". It would imply more emphasis on the way Republican policies are exploitative and unfair.

But I rather doubt that the US Democratic Party would be able to do this. Such a tactic, while potentially devastating given the current state of US public opinion, might be seen as being too ungentlemanly - like the crossbow.

By the way, Robertdfeinman, Altemeyer's work looks to me like a rediscovery of the research on the Authoritarian Personality done by German emigrants in the US in the 1940s. That led to the development of the "F-Test" for authoritarian personalities, where "F" stands for Fascist.

[Francois]

"Democrats also care about the rule of law – adherence to legal norms, rules, and precedents – as an end in itself. Republican administrations view the law as a potential obstacle to achieving particular ends...."

Care to show some evidence, any evidence?"

http://www.amazon.com/Fall-House-Bush-Believers-Executive/dp/B001AQTZ0Y/ref=pd_sim_b_6

http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Washingtons-Culture-Deception/dp/1586485563/ref=pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Government-Republican-Destroyed-Legislative/dp/0670018201/ref=pd_sim_b_5

http://www.amazon.com/Torture-Team-Rumsfelds-Betrayal-American/dp/0230603904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219197462&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0385526393/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

http://www.amazon.com/Bushs-Law-Remaking-American-Justice/dp/037542492X/ref=pd_sim_b_9

http://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Hypocrites-Toppling-Republican/dp/0307408027/ref=pd_sim_b_17

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/B0013LTF2Y/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219197613&sr=1-1

Have fun!

[robertdfeinman]

Gordon, you are right that Altemeyer's work is similar to that of Adorno and others. The difference is that the early work had technical shortcomings that made the data unreliable.

There has been much work since the 1950's in devising questionnaires that don't prejudice the answers. Altemeyer explains how he has done this over decades of refinement.

There still needs to be further work done in other than North American settings. The questions assume certain cultural norms and would need to be adapted to other areas. I don't know if anyone elsewhere is do this.

If you have any issues with his work you can post a comment on his web site, he tends to reply to most of them.

[Noni Mausa]

2slugbaits said: Isn't it time to treat voters like adults even if they aren't? ...how far out of my way should I go to protect stupid voters from themselves?

No, no, no... how far out of my way shall I go to protect myself from the choices of stupid voters?

If I am in a bus with one crazed driver and seven idiots who think it would be "cool" to drive off a cliff, submitting to the vote of the majority of is not a survival strategy. Climbing out the window (Flight to the EU) ... that is a better choice.

Americans are not fundamentally stupid. I know a lot of them, meet them when I travel, they are nice sane honourable people for the most part. All my relatives are Americans, so that proves it. [grin]

But the machinery of thought in the USA has been systematically disabled over the past few decades, so that in some areas of decision making it is nearly impossible for most Americans to make the decisions needed to detect and oppose the political parasites and predators ranged against them.

My solution? One way to begin would be to foster an understanding of the arguments and persuasive tactics used to cheat people. Board games, a TV quiz show, skill testing questions, a Dear Abby style column. Widespread columns dealing with scams and con artists. In the context of protecting the public from fast talking used car salesmen and other fraudsters, teach formal logic and argumentation from grade one onwards. Get it on the mental map of the USA. Gradually insert into the culture a habit of mockery of stupid arguments -- everybody enjoys mockery.

That approach would undercut the oily talkers and mud-flingers wherever they might originate. Democrats, Republicans, Rhinos, Albigensians, Allotropians -- it would catch them all.

Noni

[hari]

Don't forget race is a serious factor in this election.
US may have come a long way from days of civil rights fights and whatnots, but out there in the white surburbs, in particular, a blackman is not easily accepted as timber for Pres.

It's still a struggle. And BO must face the melody....

[reason]

I think BO should start subtly giving civics lessons. Talk about process, about what democracy is, about policy analysis etc. There is a folksy way to do this. What are we trying to acchieve and how do we go about it. Do what Krugman keeps saying - policy matters. Explain that democracy does not imply that any man's opinion is as good as another, it implies that everyman needs to look for the best advice because he carries the responsibility.

[reason]

If BO starts saying we have paying too much attention to sound bytes and not enough to good sense, then JM can be used as a perfect example of how not to do it.

[Extinct Species]

This is funny stuff. How can those virtuous Democrats that would never tell a lie compete with those vile evil mudslinging Republicans? What if McCain plays the race card like the Clinton's did in the primary?

Certain tactics don't always work, but by all means BO should use the ones that he thinks will pay off. And being too noble to throw mud unfortunately all too often equates to not being elected. Plenty of things to attack McCain on in an attempt to drive up his negatives.

One of the big problems with Democrats winning the presidency is that they tend to focus on ineffective issues (ex. - class warfare). And they tend to nominate candidates that are easily politically exploitable. This time around they had a choice between a black charismatic novice, a highly unlikable sourpussed woman or a pretty boy who was cheating on his cancerous wife during the primaries. The Swift Boating of Kerry was so horrendous and morally deprived that it alone should have got him elected but Americans don't want a President that has a history of condemning America and the military takes a dim view of one of its own that turns on them. Democrats may be good with someone like that but on the whole most Americans aren't. Hard to Swift Boat McCain. (Might be able to Keating 5 him, especially in the current banking crisis environment.) Better to nominate draft dodgers (Bush, Clinton).

Best tactic for the Democrats is to get a billionaire that will appeal more to those likely to vote Republican to run as a third party candidate.

[John]

One campaign that helped a little, at least, in the 1992 election was this: "The Republicans will tell whatever lie they need, to win election." The clearcut example of this lie was the claim that Clinton raised taxes (X hundred) times, while Bush only raised taxes once.

"Read my lips. No new taxes" helped as well.

My campaign slogan of the moment: Repugs LIE. Deal with it.

[kharris]

Well, let's see. Nixon broke the law in notable ways, and asserted that the law didn't apply to him because he was the president. Reagan broke the law and couldn't recall under oath whether he had. Bush Sr is a Republican, and while he may have broken the law in some ways, I don't recall and "-gate" or scandal associated with his administration. Bush Jr broke the law and has found his own Nixonian arguments against being constrained by law.

There may have been too few Democrats in the White House to make a reasonable comparison. However, Carter is treated in history more or less like his one-term companion, Bush Sr, in not being associated with a particular scandal. Though millions were spent in trying to find a public policy scandal for Clinton, the "victory" finally came down to sex. Let's not forget that the modern GOP is the party of the "Southern strategy" and the "permanent majority".

The press has been told it had by-god-better write every story as if there is moral equivalence between the parties, but that needn't be the premise from which thinking people work. If we assume that successful politicians are good at what politicians do - in this country, that means getting elected - and note that for some decades, there have been more GOP presidents than Democratic presidents, that Republicans made major improvements in congressional and gubernatorial seat counts in that period - though that has faded a bit - then we have every reason to think that Republicans have been better at doing whatever it is that wins elections. The proposition before us is that lieing and smearing wins elections. If that is true, then we have prima facia evidence that Republicans have been better at it. As things stand, the debatable proposition seems to be whether dishonesty and nastiness is a big help in getting elected. GOP success, until recently, and the tally of "-gates" and "scandals" seems pretty unambiguous, too.

[Patricia Shannon]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080817223646.htm

Study Examines The Psychology Behind Students Who Don't Cheat
ScienceDaily (Aug. 18, 2008) — While many studies have examined cheating among college students, new research looks at the issue from a different perspective – identifying students who are least likely to cheat.

The study of students at one Ohio university found that students who scored high on measures of courage, empathy and honesty were less likely than others to report their cheating in the past – or intending to cheat in the future.

Moreover, those students who reported less cheating were also less likely to believe that their fellow students regularly committed academic dishonesty.

People who don’t cheat “have a more positive view of others,” said Sara Staats, co-author of the research and professor of psychology at Ohio State University’s Newark campus.

“They don’t see as much difference between themselves and others.”

In other words, the non-cheaters are liberals.

[RW]

ISTR the criminal conviction rate for Republican administrations is much higher than Democratic administrations too. I was directed once to a site that kept track of stats such as these but I can't find it now so I'll have to rely on memory:

I don't believe any of Clinton's people were ever convicted of a crime and I think there may have been one or two Carter administration personnel convicted but can't recall. The numbers for Republicans were much, much larger: Nixon and Bush I had a couple dozen I believe and ISTR that Reagan led the pack with something over forty but I could be well off there.

Bush II is on his way with six (e.g., http://mediamatters.org/items/200703080005) but the suppression of DOJ activity WRT prosecuting Republicans was so strong during his administration that it does not seem too great a leap to suspect there are quite a few more in the wings awaiting an Attorney General willing to do his or her job.

The absence of a reference for these data is frustrating but I honestly believe my memory has the order of magnitudes right at least.

In any case, addressing the last part of kharris's syllogism, "...the debatable proposition seems to be whether dishonesty and nastiness is a big help in getting elected," it would seem to follow that Republican success supports the proposition that dishonesty (and criminality) is a positive factor vis-a-vis election, the acquisition and maintainance of power.

[Will]

So where does Hillary Clinton fit into the party of honest and law-abiding Democrats?

[Icarus]

Kharris...

Clinton also illegally bombed Iraq and Kosovo. He, like the current Bush, should have been tried for war crimes. The idiocy of Monika-gate allowed all that to be brushed under the rug.

Also, the mystery here isn't about race, or the war.

Obama wants to RAISE taxes. This is anathema to much of the american populace. People making $250 already pay too much in taxes, and raising it to more confiscatory rates has upset the crowd.

The bottom 40% of the US don't pay any Federal Income Tax...and the next 20% hardly pays any.

What Obama/McCain/Whomever need to focus on is cutting the budgets for Military/SS/Medicare-aid/and Education. We just spend too much money, and the results are poor. Instead, Obama has crafted a welfare plan guised as a tax-rebate/credit plan. Aweful.

I hope he moves further to the right soon...

[Jonathan]

Apologies if this repeats what someone has said earier as I haven't read all the comments (forum format anyone, as opposed to a vast list of comments?)

My .02 here is that it is necessary to investigate what fuels the flames of the intellectual dishonesty involved in these political/media tactics. I think that, in some ways, partially responding/fully responding/fighting back fuels the flames, not least because then the media can go on and on about who did best in this latest battle.

I think the best approach is the Gandhi approach or non-violence, non-reaction. It may be the case that additional elections are lost, but perhaps the electorate, when seeing these untruths in a vacuum of non-reaction will see them more clearly for what they are.

BTW, I wrote a comment to the previous post that a number of nice, very intelligent people responded to. Thanks for doing that and thanks for not going in for the close ego identification stuff of these political/economic debates of different viewpoints.