Skip to main content

Michael Dukakis was the 1988 Democratic nominee for president. He also served as governor of Massachusetts from 1975-1979 and 1983-1991.

On December 6th, I spoke with him about the lessons of ’88, Obama’s communications strategy, and the Occupy movement.

[Note: This interview was originally published here.]

MATT BIEBER: In an interview you did a few years ago with Katie Couric, you described yourself as the first Democrat to face the “Republican attack machine” and said that you and your team –

MICHAEL DUKAKIS: Oh, I’m not sure of that. I mean, they’ve been attacking for a long time. But I think what I said, and I meant it, was that I made a terrible mistake assuming I could blow it off – and you can’t. I mean, if you’re going to be the subject of that kind of an attack campaign, you’ve got to have a carefully thought-out strategy for dealing with it – one that preferably makes it a character issue on the attacker.

That’s easier said than done, but I had done it previously in gubernatorial races. If you say to me today, “What were you thinking?” I’m not sure. I mean, I’d run a very positive campaign in the primary, and the country, I thought, was tired of all the polarization we’d had under Reagan. But I think the clear lesson from ‘88 is if the other guy is going to come at you, you’ve got to be ready for that and you just can’t assume that folks are going to dismiss it.

MB: I’m curious about how that experience affected your perception of the country or your fellow citizens.

MD: You know, I’m not one these guys who blames others. I mean I thought it was my own fault for – and incidentally, and it’s not his fault, but I remember Mario Cuomo early on advising me. “Don’t pay any attention to this stuff,” he said. And about four days before the election, we were campaigning together in Queens and he said, “That was the worst advice I ever gave you.” [Laughs]

We all learned from ’88. I mean, Clinton was the subject of an even tougher attack campaign than I was. And he had a little unit in his campaign of about ten people – some of whom had worked for me – and they used to call themselves “The Defense Department.” And all they did was deal with Bush’s attacks – every day, I mean, on top of them, anticipating them.

And unfortunately, you’ve got to do that. Now, people have been attacking each other politically since the founding of the Republic. It was brutal back in the early part of the 1790’s, 1800’s, and nobody was more vilified than Abraham Lincoln – you know, brutal stuff. But it wasn’t electronic and that makes a difference – didn’t have quite the impact, I suspect. But, in any event, it was just a big mistake and I made it, so…

MB: It sounds like you think of everything that happened within the context of the political process and the media machine. But after going through that, did you think differently at all about your fellow citizens? Was there every a point when you thought to yourself, “How did these folks get taken in by this stuff?”

MD: No, no, no. Look, I mean, if you let your opponent attack you and you say nothing about it, or you don’t respond, you don’t correct the record – and then better still point out for example that the most liberal furlough program in America was the Reagan-Bush furlough program in the federal prison system, which Bush didn’t even know – now if you don’t say that, don’t be surprised that some people believe it. You don’t have to win by 50 percentage points; all you got to win is by one more than 50. Ultimately the fault was mine in doing that, and nobody will ever make that mistake again, particularly on the Democratic side of things.

MB: In that same interview with Katie Couric, you said that you’ve got to fight fire with fire, and I’m wondering –

MD: Well, if you’ve got to do it, you’ve got to do it skillfully and effectively, because you don’t want to turn the thing into a pissing contest in which in two weeks, people forget who started it. So, it’s more than that.

When [Ed] King and I ran against each other the second time for governor – he had beaten me in ’78 – and I was back running, the great rematch in ’82. He started coming at me with paid television, non-stop from February, and it was all about the fact that I had signed the biggest tax increase in history while I was governor the first time, which I had. I mean, there’s nothing untrue about that.

Fortunately for me, he’d run a pretty sleazy administration, and although I couldn’t match it dollar for dollar…I started coming back at him and I said in effect, I said, “Look, he may not have raised your taxes but you’re paying a huge corruption tax as a result of this guy.” And the corruption tax became my way of responding, and it was very effective. I mean, you get the point; we took his attack over taxes and basically flicked it back at him, reminding people every day that this guy ran a pretty sleazy administration.

And nobody, I think, faulted me for responding along those lines because in point of fact I was essentially flipping his attack back on him. And I beat him decisively and went on to win big in the final. That’s what I’m talking about when I’m talking about an effective strategy, which not only blunts the attacks but turns them into a character issue on the guy who’s doing it.

MB: So, what was different about the presidential? Why the different strategy?

MD: Well, it was the presidency…As I say, I thought the country was tired of all the back and forth which we had under Reagan. And that’s where a lot of the polarization started, you know. I mean, there’s no question about it. And Gingrich kind of added to it when he was Speaker.

I’ve run a very positive campaign in the primary, very successfully. You know, I’d started about 1% of the polls and won the thing against a pretty formidable field. Gore was in it, Gephardt was in it, Biden was in it – I mean, you know, what an interesting bunch of folks running. And I’m a positive guy, anyway. You know, I understand politics is a contact sport, but I’ve always been a positive guy, kind of emphasizing the positive, “Let’s get going,” you know, that kind of stuff – working together and stuff.

Now, in retrospect, it was just a colossal mistake. But at the time, I and at least a few other people [laughs] thought it made sense. Obviously, it didn’t.

MB: Do you think the kind of guy that you were as a politician –unabashedly liberal, blue collar, rode the T to work – has that model been eclipsed by another kind of politician? Could you have been successful in today’s political environment?

MD: Oh, yeah, I think so – or somebody like me. Sure, you know. I think so. Now, look, you got to focus. I mean, my theme always was strongly economic. Not that I’m not interested in other stuff, but when I ran for governor here, it was all about genuine economic opportunity for every single person in this state. No matter who they are, where they come from, what the color of their skin. That was my theme, and I went at it hard. And it was my theme nationally.

Now, of course, your opponent is going to try to knock you off by emphasizing other things – you know, death penalty, tax increases and so on and so forth – and you’ve got to understand that and you’ve got to be able to deal with it effectively. And I seemed to be able to do that except once, when I was 40 points ahead with five weeks to go in the polls and we all kind of figured it was going to be easy. And King knocked me off, much to the astonishment of everybody – maybe him, too.

But most of the issues that guys like me are concerned about are issues that unite people. Now, how you frame them and express them is important. I am the last guy in the world to advise Obama about how to communicate—he’s a far better communicator than I am—particularly given my track record in ’88. But we’re losing on the health care issue, when we ought to be winning five-to-one. Why? Because 90% of the people who don’t have health insurance in this country are working or members of working families – they’re not loafing, they’re not sitting around, they’re working, some of them two or three jobs. No healthcare. No health insurance. And when I put my universal healthcare bill through the Legislature in ’88, it was a hell of a lot better than the one we got.

I had a working person or working family next to me in every one of what must have been 200 press events I did around the issue, emphasizing that they’re working people, they got a family and their families are going to have decent affordable healthcare in this state. And [in 2009 and 2010] I think that should’ve been the Democratic theme, both out of the White House and out of the Congress.

You know, 54 million uninsured people in this country, 90% are working or members of working families. And if you want to take a poll tomorrow and ask the American people: Should working people and their families have decent affordable healthcare? I don’t have to tell you what the numbers are – it’s 95% say yes.

So why haven’t we been saying this? Beats me! I don’t know, and I think it’s one of the reasons why we’ve been losing on the healthcare issue when we should be winning. We’ve been talking about insurance reform and all this kind of stuff. That doesn’t mean anything to people. It’s whether or not folks who are working and their families are going to have decent, affordable healthcare.

So, it’s not enough to have these sentiments. I mean, you got to be able to express them effectively. I was able to do that pretty well during my political career but not so well in the summer and fall of 1988, unfortunately.

MB: Let’s take this up a level. If you were President Obama’s campaign manager, what kind of narrative would you be trying to create, both about the president’s record and about the Republican opposition?

MD: Same thing I said to you. It’s all about genuine economic opportunity for every single American – for every single American – and I’d just hammer the hell out of it. And a lot of things tie into that – you know, the healthcare thing. What are we talking about here? Healthcare for working people and their families, for God’s sake. You get the point here – you can tie a lot of stuff into that theme. But I think – particularly at a time when we’re hurting badly economically – you just got to keep coming back to that over and over and over again.

And that’s what I did as governor, running for governor, and tried to do that in ’88 but unfortunately let the opposition start raising doubts in people’s minds because of these other issues, which I just didn’t deal with effectively.

MB: What’s your take on the Occupy Movement?

MD: My hat’s off to these kids for doing what they’re doing. They’ve totally changed the terms of the debate. It’s now time to take this up several notches. Are you familiar with the teach-in we did here at Northeastern a few weeks ago?

MB: I heard of it but didn’t attend.

MD: Go online and take a look at it. I want to see those teach-ins happening on hundreds of campuses all over the country, with greater and greater intensity as we get into 2012. I think these kids have done a great job, and it is now time to get you guys [students] deeply and actively involved. I mean, you got a legitimate basis for complaint here. You’re working hard; your families are sacrificing. What are you going do when you get out?

And, you know, I remember the Vietnam War teach-ins. They had a profound effect on what happened to this country, in terms of our conduct of that war, and I think you guys have an enormous opportunity here to do the same.

So, what we’re trying to do, having done it here – if you go on the website, you’ll get a sense; we got the program, format, speakers, their slides, all of this kind of stuff – is to use this as a model for what I hope will be happening on hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of campuses all over the country. So that it isn’t just a bunch of kids in tents freezing during the winter. I mean, this thing has got to expand now and encompass more people, more places, and nobody has a more legitimate beef about the state of the economy these days than the young people who are going to school.

MB: There’s actually a similar teach-in here at Harvard tomorrow.

MD: Really?

MB: Yeah, in the Science Center.

MD: I teach at UCLA in the wintertime, so as soon as I get out there, we’ll see what we can do to organize a whole flock of these things at the [University of California campuses] all over the state.

MB: That’s great.

MD: It’s a natural step up now to take what the Occupy folks have done and really, really, you know, go big on campuses around the country.

MB: My sense is that the movement hasn’t gotten particularly fair-minded media coverage, and I’m curious: for someone who has been through the media gauntlet, how could Occupy – and maybe the expanding Occupy that you’re envisioning – more effectively communicate their vision in a relatively hostile environment?

MD: I’m not sure I agree with you. I’ve been astonished at the amount of coverage that the Occupy folks have been getting and the fact that the media has stuck with them. Now, look, over time it isn’t all going to be peaches and cream. There’ll be critics and there’ll be this and there’ll be that, which is another reason why I think we’ve got to take this up several notches and really start hitting the campuses hard. Forget about the camps now; let’s just have a good discussion about the state of the economic world and what to do about it. But on the whole they totally changed the terms of debate. Nobody’s talking about the Tea Party anymore, right?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great interview (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WarrenS, Geenius at Wrok

    I met Governor Dukakis in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention in Boston - he gave a lecture/Q&A to my group at Emerson College. It's a shame he lost to Bush, for (among other things) it gave us Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and solidified the value of slash-and-burn politics in our political advertising.

    It's worth noting that Dukakis made a comeback late in the 1988 campaign by striking a populist note ("I'm on your side"). He closed the gap between the disastrous 2nd debate and Election Day from 12-15 points to the 7-8 margin it ended up at. It's a message President Obama would do well to emulate - and already is, I think - as he heads in 2012.

    "We are the leaders we've been waiting for." - Paul Wellstone

    by MrLiberal on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 08:14:43 AM PST

  •  There was a point in my life that (3+ / 0-)

    I despised Dukakis. Hated the guy. We all did. That is, all of us who worked for Paul Simon's presidential campaign (though we hated Gephardt much more). Of course, within about 5 minutes of my candidate dropping out I started to like Mike Dukakis, and became a huge fan of his very quickly. He did run a minor league campaign against a major league GOP incumbent operation, which he pretty much admits to, but he has always been a very honorable guy.

    I still can't stand Gephardt though. Weasel.

    •  I respect him a great deal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WarrenS, Betty Pinson

      but he was an abysmal presidential candidate.   It was infuriating that he lost to Bush I.

      Thanks to the anonymous donor who gifted me with a lifetime subscription.

      by chicago minx on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 08:41:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chicago minx

        he did get a lot of bad advice from DC Dem insiders.  Its encouraging to hear him state that he regrets it and wished he'd responded to the attacks.

        I was surprised at how many of Dukakis former advisors from the 88 campaign were still working on Gore's 2000 campaign, though.  IIRC, there were a few still working on the Kerry campaign in 2004.

        "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

        by Betty Pinson on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 12:40:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The 1988 campaign... (4+ / 0-)

    ...was a terrible thing to watch.  

    Dukakis has always been one of the smartest guys in the Democratic party.

    From my very small file of "photographs taken with US presidential contenders," here's me, wearing a totally uncharacteristic suit, with Dukakis in his office in 1984.

    Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

    by WarrenS on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 08:54:29 AM PST

  •  fair-use problem. (0+ / 0-)

    /If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer/. Thoreau

    by hron on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 09:22:25 AM PST

  •  He has a tendency to govern with no reagrd to (0+ / 0-)

    the public's will. IMO, that tendency lead to a string of republican governors  in MA.

  •  The old Dem campaign rule back then (0+ / 0-)

    was that negative campaigning hurt voter turnout, and low voter turnout hurts Dem candidates.

    The second part is still true, but it was difficult to agree about not responding to GOP attacks.  It was in this vacuum that the DLC approach was hatched - run close to your enemy on the conservative issues instead of attacking them.   It hasn't been effective, but its amazing how many Dems still practice it.

    "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

    by Betty Pinson on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 12:37:36 PM PST

  •  High Speed Rail (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    Had Dukakis won in 1988, a high speed rail network would be in place now and we would no longer be dependent on Middle Eastern oil. But, of course, many things would be much different, and all for the better!

    From the ashes we can build another day.

    by onig on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 01:45:04 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site