The latest reminder that if you’re explaining you’re losing comes from Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul.
Before his campaign staff had fully recovered from their victory celebration hangovers, Paul was explaining that he wouldn’t vote to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This shifts the discussion from Paul’s message and makes him keep repeating that he doesn’t hate civil rights and thinks that discrimination is bad. The effect is to keep reminding voters that Rand Paul – favorite of the Tea Party and son of Republican/Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul – thinks the Civil Rights Act is a bad idea. Paul’s Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Jack Conway, quickly piled on, wondering out loud what Paul thinks of the Americans with Disabilities Act, OSHA and the FDA. The more Paul protests that he doesn’t hate minorities or people in wheelchairs, doesn’t think worker safety is mumbo jumbo, and doesn’t think our children should be exposed to lead paint, the more people will wonder how much he hates minorities and people in wheelchairs, why workers shouldn’t be protected from mine cave-ins, and why he thinks it’s ok for our kids to eat lead paint.
A better approach is to play offense – use the attack to pivot to your message and make it an attack on your opponent. One solution for Paul would be to say “this is the exact problem with American politics and this is what Americans are sick of; taxes are too high, freedom is curtailed too much, and entrenched special interests in Washington are running our lives …of course racism is evil, what a stupid question, and the fact that it’s even being asked proves how much is wrong with Washington…” And then go to his small government/libertarian message. He would be far better served by using his beliefs as a weapon than as a shield.
Paul finds himself in the same position that many candidates and organizations find themselves in.
For example, one can imagine that a Maryland second-grader’s question to First Lady Obama about immigration will lead many to attack the school for allowing undocumented students and not turning over to immigration those about whom it has probable cause to believe are in the U.S. illegally. One answer from the school is “that’s not our job, the law says we have to educate all students, we don’t ask and don’t tell…” Explaining – and losing. Another solution is to play offense, “of course we teach all children, and of course we don’t arrest their parents – the kids are here and we can either teach them our values and the skills they need to succeed in America, or we can turn them to the streets where they will learn to hate America and be provided the tools to turn that hatred into violence. Why on earth would anyone suggest we intentionally and deliberately foster hatred of America and toss children to the streets?”
Good defense will get you a tie, but you need to score to win.
