Do not let the genius behind Bernie Sanders’s decision to not run political attack ads in his campaigns go unnoticed. The move is both pragmatic and moral for Sanders. He feels that negative campaigns are a large part of what is wrong with American politics. At the same time, the pragmatism lets Bernie define the conversation of the election.

As In These Times writer Marc Daalder points out:

[…] Bernie’s refusal to run negative attacks ads has proven far more important than revealing contrasts between the two candidates. This decision actually forced Hillary’s campaign into an incredibly difficult position. If she ran an attack ad, she risked coming off as desperate or a bully. But by not running attacks ads, she would essentially render herself unable to combat any surge in the polls by Sanders.

Hillary, however, couldn’t resist the opportunity to attack Sanders as the media sank into a criticism of the term “socialist.” A Super PAC that supported Clinton sent an attack email around that tried to tie Bernie to Hugo Chavez. Bernie, in turn, declined to attack Clinton and instead called upon his followers to fight back and stand up against the attacks.

It took only two days for Sanders to raise some $1.2 million following the Clinton’s attack.

Bernie Sanders’s choice to not run negative attack ads is good for American politics, and the American people want to see more of it.

For more on this, read the article from In These Times titled: “Bernie Sanders’ Refusal to Attack Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Principled – It’s Political Genius.”