The Dallas Morning News reports that former Texas representative Beto O'Rourke "is close to making a decision on whether to run for president in 2020 or challenge Texas Sen. John Cornyn. Judging from his recent comments and out-of-state trips, the El Paso Democrat would rather aim for the White House and leave Cornyn to someone else."

If O'Rourke entered the presidential race, he would need to find a message distinct from that of the slew of other candidates. With Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., preaching love and unity, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., touting her ability to work across the aisle, O'Rourke's Senate-campaign message of unity and tolerance might seem unoriginal. Emphasizing his commitment to inclusion and tolerance - another message he hit during his 2018 run against Sen. Ted Cruz - could seem odd coming from a white man in a race populated by African Americans, Hispanics and women.

O'Rourke did make a salient point during the Senate contest: We cannot run mind-numbing, insult-driven campaigns and then expect to govern effectively. Voters have gotten dumber and governing has become impossible after two years of gotcha ads, opposition-research dumps and nasty debates.

Why then doesn't O'Rourke, if he does choose to get into the race, issue a challenge: None of the Democrats will employ opposition researchers to dig up dirt on one another and slip it to the press. If a candidate has some criticism of an opponent, he or she should be above-board and take responsibility for going "negative." The practice of pre-baked stories delivered on "background" or "with no fingerprints" to the media has become ubiquitous, to the detriment of the campaigns, the voters and the media (who get corralled into doing the campaigns' dirty work for them).

For this campaign in particular, why should Democrats do President Donald Trump's opposition research for him, rather than force him to investigate the bazillion candidates in preparation for the campaign?

Some critics of this approach might say it is critical for Democrats to vet their eventual nominee. Absolutely, but the media can do it without oppo elves, and candidates themselves can raise issues about other candidates - they just have to acknowledge they're doing it.

I'm not alone in suggesting a change in how candidates campaign, especially when the health of our democracy turns on coming up with a credible challenger to an unfit president.

"I would stipulate that winning a campaign victory is best achieved by not making that the primary goal of politics - which leads me to advocate for the 2020 presidential candidates and their operatives engaging in 'conscious campaigns,' " wrote Matthew Dowd for ABC News.

Dowd recommended a list of ten pledges including this: "End the tactics of personal insult, name-calling and berating or demeaning others. If we wouldn't want to see words and actions our sons or daughters use in elementary school, then we shouldn't allow them in political campaigns."

My suggestion is even more modest than that: Don't play the secret oppo game. If you have something to say, take ownership of it. Don't do Trump's work for him. Too much to ask? Well, perhaps O'Rourke could shame fellow Democrats into doing it if he enters the race. If nothing else, it will sniff out the contenders who are so attached to this form of underhanded attack (Me? I'm not going negative!) that they won't dare abandon it.

Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post.