One of the deal-breakers people cite when opposing Mitt is his negative campaigning. To hear McCain tell it, Mitt alone has repeatedly torpedoed his fellow Republicans while the others have carried on positive campaigns, responding only when attacked. I am incapable of articulating how outrageous such a claim is coming from him! If you are one of those who have ruled out Mitt for his supposed "negativity," read on!
You can also have a look at the earlier posts in this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
First, let’s get all the accusations out on the table. Some point out that Mitt "went negative" first in Iowa. Some say Mitt sprayed the airwaves with his "attacks," outspending his rivals to make things dirty. Some vehemently maintain that Mitt has unfairly maligned his competitors with untrue accusations. Mitt has been the "mud slinger," supposedly, and the other candidates have only engaged insofar as they were attacked first. These notions are political spin at its finest—refined by a media bias rubber stamp. But, if you’re not already immovably certain Mitt is scum, you’ll probably be receptive to a little objective commentary on the subject. Let’s take a closer look at this bunch of hogwash.
Back in Iowa, Mitt advertised for months with a positive message for America, spending a lot of money to overcome a couple of his opponents’ name-recognition advantage. From nowhere, Huckabee started to gain followers as anti-Mormon sentiment became a more important criterion for some Iowans than candidates’ actual positions. Romney waited for the media to expose Huckabee’s questionable record (not out of spite, but because people ought to know who they are voting on), but the media was happy to support anyone other than the squeaky clean Mormon and kept largely mum on Huckabee’s unconservative record. So, Romney started comparison advertisements highlighting their respective records, very carefully avoiding unsubstantive name calling and character attacks. In fact, he complimented his rival in every so-called "negative" commercial.
Huckabee, confronted with his own undesirable record, was outraged. He called Mitt a liar (in more politically acceptable words, of course). He snarled out passive aggressive insults directed toward Mitt every chance he got, all in general enough terms to maintain plausible deniability that he was actually attacking or even referring to Mitt. He spent much more time railing on Mitt than actually clarifying anything Mitt was supposed to have got wrong. And, in a show of seeming hypocrisy and guile, he produced hundreds of thousands of attack mailers and called a press conference to blast Mitt with his own TV commercial. Deciding at the last minute to "take the high road," he said he wouldn’t use his attacks, but showed the TV spot to the press anyway. The subsequent "leak" effectively attacked Mitt AND burnished his holier-than-thou image. For anyone who cared to notice, his attack ad didn’t reciprocate Mitt’s good taste by complimenting Mitt’s character, but rather insulted him prior to comparing their records. It was a qualitatively different approach: a character attack more than a comparison of positions on the issues.
Mitt’s and Huckabee’s commercials were similar in that they highlighted the opponent’s record in as unflattering a way as possible, using edgy facts that could be disputed as misleading. But they were different in their overall feeling. Mitt wanted to paint Huckabee as unconservative. Huckabee wanted to paint Mitt as a "bad guy," like a Sunday morning cartoon villain. It was a characterization many bigots were just waiting to capitalize on.
New Hampshire escalated the unfriendly tenor of the campaigns. McCain, as the new frontrunner in the polls, claimed that his attacks on Mitt’s trustworthiness and reliability were only regrettably necessary in response to Mitt’s insistence on going negative. But, again, Mitt’s ads were respectful to McCain’s character and complimented him before criticizing his positions on illegal immigration and the Bush tax cuts. McCain milked the role of victim, and the press played up the righteous indignation for all it was worth. More and more, Mitt was cast as the ornery spoiler who just couldn’t play nice.
With the press clearly taking sides, Mitt returned to his own message in Michigan rather than emphasizing his opponents’ obvious (but largely unreported) faults. This worked smashingly and Mitt won by a generous margin. Mitt campaigned alone in Nevada while his opponents and their followers called millions of households with push polls disparaging Mormonism and repeatedly questioning his integrity rather than merely discussing his record.
Florida seemed benign for most of the time. Then, suddenly, with the race essentially tied a few days before the Florida primary, McCain’s and Romney’s rhetoric again focused on one another. McCain continued to play it as if Romney had instigated everything and was the sole bad apple among the Republican contenders (when really, what McCain was trying to say is that Romney was the only COMPETITIVE Republican contender). However, near as I could tell, it was McCain that set off the tailspin of negativity by inaccurately portraying Romney’s position on troop withdrawal from Iraq. And, again, McCain’s adversarial comments not only mischaracterized Romney’s overall positions on the issues, but they were built on a subtext of insult and vaguely disguised enmity.
Reagan’s 11th commandment to not attack your fellow Republicans makes sense for purely practical reasons. You need party solidarity to be most competitive in the general, and raging anger, grudges, enmity, and indignation don’t usually instill the greatest solidarity. On the other hand, how should a candidate campaign without specifically discussing his opponents? My impression is that only the personal attacks should be taboo. You don’t go after one another’s character. Differences should be aggressively pointed out and debated. However, mistakes should charitably be corrected and referred to as errors rather than lies. Reversals should be "changes" rather than "flip-flops." One should leave the animosity and ill-will out of the spirited debates about records and positions.
So, where does all this leave Mitt? Well, in my opinion, he’s a class act in a field of hypocrites. He’s admitted his own imperfection but notes he’s striving to do better. I’ve noticed that he’s let his frustration boil over into what might be considered a personally directed comment once or twice, but he’s also been much better at following Reagan’s admonition than his opponents by a long shot. He certainly doesn’t deserve any particular condemnation for "going negative," as some say; he is the least guilty of hypocrisy and negative character smears when compared to Huckabee and McCain.
To be fair, Romney shouldn’t carry the burden of "going negative" that his opponents are so eager to have him shoulder alone.
4 comments:
Wow. Thanks for this, Coach, and thanks for directing me to it. As I was sitting there thinking of whether or not to read it right now instead of doing my laundry :o), your blog post won out (as did my curiosity), and I'm glad!
First of all, as I commented on Meaty Chunks, I am not married to any of the candidates yet. So whether or not I would vote for Romney is still up in the air. But the points you made about negativity in campaigning is what peaked my interest, because it has been what has made me so skeptical of any of them.
You mentioned that opponents were attacking one another only if they were attacked first. That statement got me right away. It made me think of my children! "Why did you hit your brother?" "Because he hit me first!" And I strive to teach my children to turn the other cheek, not just at home, but at school or anywhere else they might be. To me, a strong opponent would do the same. Besides, if you are running a clean campaign, are a person of good character, have no skeletons in your closet, etc., how much need is there to retaliate?
You said that there has been "character attack more than a comparison of position on the issues." There you have it. For me, this campaign is not about a popularity contest. It's not about the guy I'd most like to invite to dinner; it's about who's going to take what position on the issues that really concern me. It's about who would do what I think I would do, as far as those issues are concerned. No one is going to be able to complete my entire checklist, but someone will surely get close. That's what I care about. I am not an enmity-filled Mormon hater, and one of the best statements I've heard was by someone being interviewed on TV - she was just a regular person living in a regular house with a regular family, a lot like me - and she said something like, "I don't care if you are Mormon or Protestant or Jewish or etc., I care about what you are going to do about the issues that I care about." Bingo.
But I want to make sure that after you say you are going to do x, y, or z, you bring it to fruition. And that is the hardest part. How do we know?
You said that "raging anger, grudges, enmity and indignation don't usually instill the greatest solidarity." You're right. And that is why I don't trust people. You also said that it is a necessary part of campaigning to discuss your opponents. But why can't you say, "My opponent believes this way on this issue, and I believe differently. I would do this instead." That makes more sense, is more sportsman-like (so to speak), and is much less confusing for simple-minded folk like myself.
So, I'm still researching, still thinking, still mulling, but it is sometimes hard to wade through all that mud. Thanks for this post, Coach.
Thanks for the comment. It's weird to read it on this blog... "when world collide." :-)
Yeah, I agree with you that there's no need to retaliate. I honestly believe that Romney has done his best to do exactly what you've described: "My opponent believes this way on this issue, and I believe differently. I would do this instead." But, when he does that, he's called out for his "attacks". That's what's so frustrating. He has avoided questioning McCain and Huckabee's character, even though they have made it a regular part of their day to disparage his. And yet, somehow, magically, the press still paints HIM as the negative one. It's really quite remarkable!
Good luck with your candidate looking! You know where to find me if you have any Romney questions.
By the way, I'm going to take out the part about Mormon haters and republish. It doesn't sound at all as I intended it. I was going to make the point that anti-Mormon bias is responsible for Romney getting the worst press when two candidates, both equally guilty of negative campaigning or changing positions or whatever, are assessed by the media. But that doesn't mean that everyone who thinks the negative campaigners suck are motivated by religious hatred. So, sorry about that Mrs. Donut and anybody else who might have read this.
Coach, you truly don't have to worry about me in that respect. I knew exactly what you were saying, and I think that you understood my point as well: we need to be unbiased about the man that we elect for this office. It needs to be about the issues, not whether a candidate is Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Shinto, blue with green stripes and purple spots, etc. etc. But the unfortunate part is when people DO say things like, "Well, I could never vote for him because he is Mormon (or etc.)," and base all of their voting on whether or not the candidate is this religion, that religion, or whatever else. So I took absolutely no offense to your statement; the unfortuntate thing about your statement is that it holds truth.
Post a Comment