Don't Worry, Be Angry

By Matthew Cooper

There's something delightful when political candidates really despise each other. In 1992 Jerry Brown ranted about Hillary Clinton's work for a failed Arkansas S&L, and Bill Clinton screamed back during one debate that Brown "wasn't worth" standing on the stage "with my wife." Paul Tsongas dubbed Clinton a "pander bear." Clinton told him sarcastically in another debate, "You're always perfect, Paul." Tsongas replied, "I'm not perfect, but I'm honest."

Ah, such healthy anger. So cathartic. So liberating.

But this is the year of the passive-aggressive campaign, in which candidates mask their true feelings by saying how much they like their opponents. George Bush calls John McCain a "a good man" but then accuses McCain of distorting his tax plan. McCain salutes Bush every chance he gets and then cries foul about "attack ads" Bush has aired. On the Democratic side, Al Gore says he respects Bill Bradley--and then demolishes him for quitting the Senate, "eliminating" Medicaid, voting once for a school-voucher experiment and supporting the 1981 Reagan budget cuts. Except for that, though, he really respects him.

This is the equivalent of telling your wife you love her dress, but asking if she has anything else she could wear. Somehow the candidates have got it in their heads that it's bad to be openly negative, let alone angry. The fear of being dubbed a negative campaigner clearly stymied Steve Forbes. He waited to unleash his trademark you're-not-a-real-conservative ads against Bush. When Bush fought back, it was in muted tones; he referred to the bilious ads Forbes ran against Bob Dole in 1996, but did not challenge the tycoon directly.

Last week McCain and Bush got in a little spat, which ended up being about who had gone negative. Bush put out an ad saying McCain's proposal to cut certain corporate deductions--like for seats at sporting events--would amount to a $40 billion tax increase. McCain denied it was an increase at all and accused Bush of breaking their long-standing pledge not to engage in negative campaigning. Then he launched an ad saying Bush had gone negative. Bush complained that McCain was engaging in "name calling." Are these guys running for social chair? What happened to that tough guy in the flight suit in all those McCain posters? Can anyone find me a tough-talkin' Texan? Is Steve Forbes the only macho man in this race?

No one wants to seem like the heavy, which is understandable since "going negative" is considered the worst thing in politics. Editorial boards scold you; voters get turned off. The impeachment episode made us wary of scorched-earth politics. You get mad, and you start to look like those angry House managers.

Maybe what has got lost is the distinction between negative and misleading ads. There's nothing wrong with a negative ad if it's an honest accounting of an opponent's record or position. If you're Gary Bauer and you believe abortion is murder, then, hey, run an ad saying so and why your opponent is soft on abortion. And how helpful is a positive ad anyway? Morning in America? Reagan's 1984 ad was all gauzy images of smiling schoolkids and happy neighborhoods. Yuck.

No one wants American politics to be all bitterness. There ought to be a happy middle ground between we're-all-friends and I-hate-you. But if you had to choose on the basis of raw honesty, there's a good case for the latter.