(This started as a comment in a earlier thread but I decided to promote it to the front page)
Some people have disagreed with me and their arguments can be summed up as follows:
1. The tactics in question are legal
2. The tactics are effective
3. The other side uses the same tactics.
I do not disagree with any of those arguments but nonetheless I still believe we should not use those tactics. Barack Obama provides an excellent case in point.
Obama won his first election campaign by knocking all his competitors (including Alice Palmer, the incumbent) off the ballot. He was elected to the US Senate by exposing his competitors’ dirty laundry. His followers call that “bare-knuckle” politics.
He won the Democratic nomination for President by, among other things, playing the race card, disenfranchising two states and by getting the Superdelegates to vote for him instead of the top vote winner. At the DNC convention Hillary wasn’t even allowed to receive the votes of the delegates she won, thus disenfranchising millions of voters.
His tactics were legal and effective but Hillary refused to use similar tactics because she understood that using such tactics corrupt the user and damage the political process.
So would you rather be like him, or her?
I could go on but I think you get my point. I’ll let a man far wiser than me have the last word:
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? – Matthew 16:26