Falling to the Darkside: The Legacy of the 2012 Campaign
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
- Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight Rises
Many Progressives are jubilant over Barack Obama's reelection. And yet, they should be mourning the unceremonious demise of the Hope and Change promised in the 2008 election.
This Democratic election effort proved that a party cannot win multiple elections unless it fights dirty. This, to me, is Obama's legacy, unintentional though it may be. The incentives and structure of the election process are so well entrenched, that not even the best of us can resist the temptation and, worse, the need to employ morally distasteful tactics. Obama and Democrats rode into office in 2008/2009 on the wave of public disillusionment with "politics as usual." Four years later, they were politics as usual's number one fans.
How can anyone see this as anything but Anakin Skywalker's transformation into Darth Vader? Isn't this exactly what happened to Harvey Dent? To anyone concerned with American political discourse, hasn't Obama lived long enough to see himself become the villain?
Obama's 2008 campaign was so refreshing because it avoided the worst excesses of modern campaigns: technically true but intentionally misleading ads, whisper campaigns, and ad hominem attacks. While there was some of that in 2008, it was a noticeable drop off from the Karl Rove driven depredations of the Bush years. We might attribute such chivalry to McCain's inability to position himself as a viable alternative and, therefore, such tactics were unnecessary. That was never Obama's take though. He promised to unite the clans and work together. He envisioned a new foundation for political discourse that was enlightened, civil and productive. I bought in. So did most of us. Because we wanted it so bad.
Fast forward to 2012, this campaign proved much nastier than 2008 (again, probably because Romney put up a better fight than McCain). But let me tell you the most disappointing thing: Obama and the Progressives availed themselves of all the nasty, misleading tactics that they vilified George W. Bush for using. For example, take all of the ads portraying Romney's leadership of Bain Capital as anti-American and (worse!) anti-middle class. Do you remember the ad that ran in predominantly industrial states which so indelicately toed the line of accusing Romney of killing a man's wife?
The claims in this ad are each true in isolation. Yet, the juxtaposition is intended to create a causal link between Bain's (and therefore Romney's) decisions and this woman's death. How is that different from the risible nonsense that Republicans deployed during the Bush era to imply that Progressives were soft on terror and hated freedom? It's not. It is a deplorable. Karl Rove was a genius at doing this and I saw great dishonor in it then. I see great dishonor in it now too.
Herein lies the great Progressive failure of this election. To deride a practice so vehemently and adopt it with with such little compunction, reveals that neither side has any true moral foundation. The drawn out fight abraded the artifice of promises to change the system. It's not possible. That horrifies and liberates me.
Admittedly, this ad was run by Priorities USA, a PAC supporting Obama, not Obama himself. That vitiates any culpability for Obama. (He is not free of blame though, he ran ads that followed the same pattern of misleading facts designed to create an impression especially ads appealing to atavistic fear of the Chinese). What does it say about Progressives that they took advantage of PACs as much as conservatives? Who led the charge against the Citizens United decision? Who fulminated against the excesses of unchecked money in politics? Who presaged the lack of accountability and deception? The same side that availed itself so effectively of all those baleful tactics this past election.
Obama, so honored by his supporters for his perspicacity, missed the mark this election. This was an opportunity to prove that positive campaigning can win big. Instead we got hackneyed us-versus-them, rich-versus-poor wedge politics. If the system can be changed, if American minds can be focused on what's important, if Obama believed in his 2008 campaign rhetoric, he should have run a campaign based on the same principles as 2008. Instead, he stole a page from the Republicans' 2000 and 2004 playbooks.
I believe there are two fundamental problems with American political discourse. First, we have foolishly attempted to strip any language of morality or qualitative judgment from our political lexicon. Second, each side refuses to hold their own to the same standards they hold their opponents to. What is fairness if not applying the same rules to similarly situated people?
For Progressives, this election was a dramatic and stultifying example of the latter. For so long, they endured the parade of W's horribles and, in spite of this perceived injustice, sunk to his level the minute the going got tough.
- Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight Rises
Many Progressives are jubilant over Barack Obama's reelection. And yet, they should be mourning the unceremonious demise of the Hope and Change promised in the 2008 election.
This Democratic election effort proved that a party cannot win multiple elections unless it fights dirty. This, to me, is Obama's legacy, unintentional though it may be. The incentives and structure of the election process are so well entrenched, that not even the best of us can resist the temptation and, worse, the need to employ morally distasteful tactics. Obama and Democrats rode into office in 2008/2009 on the wave of public disillusionment with "politics as usual." Four years later, they were politics as usual's number one fans.
How can anyone see this as anything but Anakin Skywalker's transformation into Darth Vader? Isn't this exactly what happened to Harvey Dent? To anyone concerned with American political discourse, hasn't Obama lived long enough to see himself become the villain?
Obama's 2008 campaign was so refreshing because it avoided the worst excesses of modern campaigns: technically true but intentionally misleading ads, whisper campaigns, and ad hominem attacks. While there was some of that in 2008, it was a noticeable drop off from the Karl Rove driven depredations of the Bush years. We might attribute such chivalry to McCain's inability to position himself as a viable alternative and, therefore, such tactics were unnecessary. That was never Obama's take though. He promised to unite the clans and work together. He envisioned a new foundation for political discourse that was enlightened, civil and productive. I bought in. So did most of us. Because we wanted it so bad.
Fast forward to 2012, this campaign proved much nastier than 2008 (again, probably because Romney put up a better fight than McCain). But let me tell you the most disappointing thing: Obama and the Progressives availed themselves of all the nasty, misleading tactics that they vilified George W. Bush for using. For example, take all of the ads portraying Romney's leadership of Bain Capital as anti-American and (worse!) anti-middle class. Do you remember the ad that ran in predominantly industrial states which so indelicately toed the line of accusing Romney of killing a man's wife?
The claims in this ad are each true in isolation. Yet, the juxtaposition is intended to create a causal link between Bain's (and therefore Romney's) decisions and this woman's death. How is that different from the risible nonsense that Republicans deployed during the Bush era to imply that Progressives were soft on terror and hated freedom? It's not. It is a deplorable. Karl Rove was a genius at doing this and I saw great dishonor in it then. I see great dishonor in it now too.
Herein lies the great Progressive failure of this election. To deride a practice so vehemently and adopt it with with such little compunction, reveals that neither side has any true moral foundation. The drawn out fight abraded the artifice of promises to change the system. It's not possible. That horrifies and liberates me.
Admittedly, this ad was run by Priorities USA, a PAC supporting Obama, not Obama himself. That vitiates any culpability for Obama. (He is not free of blame though, he ran ads that followed the same pattern of misleading facts designed to create an impression especially ads appealing to atavistic fear of the Chinese). What does it say about Progressives that they took advantage of PACs as much as conservatives? Who led the charge against the Citizens United decision? Who fulminated against the excesses of unchecked money in politics? Who presaged the lack of accountability and deception? The same side that availed itself so effectively of all those baleful tactics this past election.
Obama, so honored by his supporters for his perspicacity, missed the mark this election. This was an opportunity to prove that positive campaigning can win big. Instead we got hackneyed us-versus-them, rich-versus-poor wedge politics. If the system can be changed, if American minds can be focused on what's important, if Obama believed in his 2008 campaign rhetoric, he should have run a campaign based on the same principles as 2008. Instead, he stole a page from the Republicans' 2000 and 2004 playbooks.
I believe there are two fundamental problems with American political discourse. First, we have foolishly attempted to strip any language of morality or qualitative judgment from our political lexicon. Second, each side refuses to hold their own to the same standards they hold their opponents to. What is fairness if not applying the same rules to similarly situated people?
For Progressives, this election was a dramatic and stultifying example of the latter. For so long, they endured the parade of W's horribles and, in spite of this perceived injustice, sunk to his level the minute the going got tough.
Comments