Confusing Strategic Questions With Moral Questions

I can barely watch cable news anymore. Seems like every time I turn it on, somebody is talking to a collection of "surrogates." They all speak relentlessly about strategy, focusing on moral questions only when they become too painfully relevant to ignore...but then defusing them with lame platitudes like "politics ain't beanbag."

McCain undertaking a strategy that amounts to organized slander? "Well, Wolf, he has no choice! He's losing, and he has to get the attention off the economy!"

Has to? In what sense of "has to?" What you really mean is: he has to if he wants to win. That is: if we wants to win, then he has to slander his opponent. Say it in its full-blown form, and the relevant question is obvious:

But isn't it wrong to slander someone in order to trick people into voting for you?

"Politics ain't beanbag, Wolf."

WTF is that supposed to mean in this context? The moral issue doesn't go away just because you can spew out a lame cliche. "Politics ain't beanbag" means something like "politics is tough business." It doesn't mean that you get to do anything you want. It doesn't mean that you get to tell lies and slander your opponent. Politics may not be beanbag, but it isn't murder either. Politics may be tough, but there's a limit. And if candidates like McCain overstep those limits, then people should not vote for them.

Is it o.k. for me to start stealing people's belongings, and in my defense say "the acquisition of material goods ain't beanbag, Wolf." I mean, similar considerations apply here. I could say "but I had to steal it," meaning if I was going to live in the style I preferred, then I had to steal it. I mean, there's a big difference between (a) I had to do x and (b) if I wanted y, then I had to do x. We all want all sorts of things, but that doesn't entail that we get to employ any means we like in order to acquire them.

But it's alarming how often serious discussions get derailed by lame-ass cliches like "politics ain't beanbag." Innumerable undergraduate discussions have foundered on the rhetorical rocks of "who's to say?," perhaps the most ridiculous quasi-rhetorical question in human history. And serious discussions of our obligations in war are often sent into a tailspin when some moron says "all's fair in love and war." Something that isn't true, and that no even semi-serious person has ever thought was true.

Obama's representatives need to go right at this problem. McCain has moved to the lies-and-slander strategy. But politics ain't beanbag, Wolf. The response?:

"Look, politics is a tough, serious business. But that doesn't mean you get to lie and slander your opponent. McCain is lying about Barack Obama, and people should not vote for a liar. Running a tough campaign is one thing; running a fundamentally unserious and dishonest campaign is something else entirely. John McCain is lying and trying to misdirect the American people in order to trick them into voting for him. This is not o.k., and you can't make it o.k. by spouting ridiculous platitudes like "politics ain't beanbag." John McCain does not have to run his campaign in this way. He has chosen to. He has chosen to do so because winning is more important to him than honesty, and more important than allowing the American people to choose their leader on the basis of accurate information. Politics is tough, but there are limits. Falsely insinuating that your opponent is a terrorist, or unpatriotic, or a child molester is not tough politics--it's loathsome and slandrous and evil, and it's way, way, way, way over the line. Our obligations to be truthful and civil do not evaporate every four years merely because there is an election. In fact, truth and civility are even more important during elections because so much is on the line. People should not vote for candidates who are willing to violate their moral obligations in order to win. In the case at hand, this means that people should not vote for John McCain."