To all the naysayers who have been ragging on Bernie Sanders for his wonderful speech at the 2015 Iowa Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner:
He never said he wouldn't "go negative."
What he's said over and over again is that he wouldn't "run a negative ad" and that he wouldn't attack his opponent in personal terms.
What he's said over and over is more along these lines:
“We’re going to run an issue-oriented campaign... I’ve never run a negative ad in my life, don’t intend to do that.”
There is some dispute as to
what negative campaigning actually is:
[T]he standard political science definition for negativity in campaigns is “talking about the opponent.” The scholars at the Wesleyan Media Project who track, among other things, campaign negativity, likewise embrace this definition, stating that ads are negative if “they mentioned an opponent.”
Keep this soft definition in mind the next time you hear a politician or columnist bemoaning the rise of negativity in campaign. Is it even possible to run a campaign without mentioning your opponent?...
The overly broad definition ends up overstating the octane of negative ads, lumping together as it does personal slams and attacks on opponent’s stands.
Delineating his positions on a range of important issues and pointing out that they were different, and better, than those taken by his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is what Bernie Sanders did in his Jefferson-Jackson Dinner speech. And about time, too.
Until he was ready to make this differentiation, and make it strongly, on moral terms, I was starting to wonder if he really had any intention of winning.
I'm glad to see he's finally doing so.
Overly positive campaigns, the authors hold, deprive voters the “full range of information that allows voters to make up their minds.” Imagine making a decision about what car to buy, what job to take, where to vacation or what restaurant meal to consume if the only information you were exposed to was the positive information provided by carmakers, employers, vacation spots or restaurants. Useful decisions are rarely made by comparing the positives of what’s on offer. One must also judge the negatives, which reveal failings and weaknesses. But sellers of cars or candidates never volunteer their own negatives or flaws. For that information we must rely on the competition—opposing candidates—or third parties (like journalists).
Negative campaigns are the only way to bring down an incumbent, or an Establishment favorite, as Hillary is.
And he hasn't even promised that he won't go to negative. In his recent interview with David Axelrod, he said:
“Well, it’s my hope that I will never run a negative ad,” Sanders replied when Axelrod asked if the senator thought he could make it through the 2016 campaign without going negative. “I surely hope so. I surely hope so.”
“I never have after all these years. But I — we’ll see...”
Bring it on, Bernie, if you want to win. There's plenty there in Hillary's record that you could, and should, go after. And contrasting your record with hers - i.e., so-called negative campaigning - is the way to do it.