David Brooks Explains it All

Another week, another head slapping David Brooks column. The thesis this week is that McCain, the man, really wanted to run a clean campaign – but, wouldn’t you know it, that blasted media (and here we picture Brooks turning his head and spitting on the ground) simply wouldn’t let him. I’ll let Brooks lay out some of the ways McCain tried to remake politics:

McCain started his general-election campaign in poverty-stricken areas of the South and Midwest. He went through towns where most Republicans fear to tread and said things most wouldn’t say. It didn’t work. The poverty tour got very little coverage on the network news. McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama.

McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked. Obama vetoed the town meeting idea. The issue is not closed, but G.O.P. leaders are resisting a cross-party pick like Lieberman.

That mean old Obama just wouldn’t agree to do exactly what McCain wanted! What other road is there, other than to imply that Obama wants to commit treason to win the presidency, is in any case not ready to be president, and is, apparently an airheaded celebrity?

Other than the fact that this is almost exactly the thesis laid out by David Broder a few weeks ago (twice, actually), Joe Lieberman, postpartisan!? Is there any figure in American politics right now who is engaged in more nakedly partisan posturing?

Brooks (and Broder) are arguing that, because Obama wouldn’t agree to McCain’s terms, it’s Obama’s fault that McCain is running a despicable, Rovian campaign. Because McCain’s message isn’t able to find any purchase with Americans, it’s Obama’s fault that McCain is forced to imply that Obama is a traitor and a mysterious, frightening Other. And because Obama isn’t winning by double digits (“Everyone said McCain would be down by double digits at this point.” And who are these people, David? Thanks for providing some sources!), it’s McCain who’s really winning.

Is there any aspect of his campaign that McCain is responsible for? Or, is the magnetic sway of the aura of Obama’s powerful Elitist Liberal Infatuation Generator so powerful that even the staffers of the McCain campaign are unable to escape its seductive pull? John McCain didn’t want to run a sleazy, by-the-numbers campaign. He wanted to help engender an era of post-partisan politics where Davids Brooks and Broder could skip merrily down the Mall, hand in hand, to a voting booth in a secret garden and cast their votes for their favorite Maverick War Hero, ensuring that no substantive policy differences would ever be discussed – because implying that people have different “positions” on “issues” is simply too gauche.

But, damn it, McCain was losing. Principled standards are for winning campaigns.