Confessions of a Negative Campaigner

Copyright Indiana Policy Review (1991)

"It is a trustworthy statement, deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all"-1Timothy1:15

In the aftermath of the 1990 election cycle, witness to one of the most divisive and negative campaigns in Indiana's modern congressional history, the words of Saint Paul seem to provide an appropriate starting point for the confessions of a negative campaigner. Negative campaigning, I now know, is wrong. That is not to say that a negative campaign is an ineffective alternative in a tough political race. Pollsters will attest- with great conviction- that it is the negatives that move voters. And the mantra of the modern political campaign is "drive up the negatives".

That is the advice political pros give to Republican and Democratic candidates alike, even though negative ads sell better for Democrats (my admittedly biased explaination is that Republican voters disregard a Democrat's negative ads as 'predictable' while expecting a Republican to be 'above that sort of thing').

But none of that explains my conversion. It would be ludicrous for a conservative to argue that negative campaigning is wrong merely because it is unfair, or because it works better for one side than another, or because it breaks some tactical rule.

It is a wrongness not of rule violated but of opportunity lost. It is wrong, quite simply, to squander a candidate's priceless moment in history, a moment in which he or she could have brought critical issues before the citizenry, on partisan bickering.

And this wrongness is not limited to the personal but extends to the general. Yes, it was personally wrong for me to waste my moment and limited campaign dollars talking about how an opponent might or might not have profited from the sale of his family farm. But in defeat, as unaddressed issue piles upon unaddressed issue, it seems more grievous that I left my supporters so few clues as to how I would have governed differently.

It is clear to me now that campaigns ought to be about three simple propositions:

First, a campaign ought to demonstrate the basic human decency of the candidate. That means your First Amendment rights end at the tip of your opponent's nose- even in matters of political rhetoric.

Second, a campaign ought to be about the advancement of issues whose success or failure is more significant than that of the candidate. Whether on the Left or the Right, candidates ought to seek to leave a legacy- a foundation of arguments- in favor of policies upon which their successors can build. William F. Buckley carries with him a useful malapropism, "Don't just do something", it says, "stand there".

Third, and very much last, campaigns should be about winning. I consider it more than a literal correction to note that Vince Lombardi's exact words were, "winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is." A fellow member of my Failed Politician's Club put it in political context. "Our only mistake, " he said, "was that we thought that winning was the most important thing we could do."

Negative campaigning is born of that trap. But I predict that one day soon a breed of candidate will step forward , faces as fresh as the morning and hearts as brave as the dawn. This breed will turn away from running "to win" and toward running "to stand". And it's representatives will see the inside of as many offices as their party can nominate them to fill."

"Confessions of a Negative Campaigner" was written by Mike Pence in 1991 and first appeared in the Summer Edition of Indiana Policy Review.