Two weeks ago I attended a debate between Congressman Brad
Sherman and Congressman Howard Berman, two candidates competing for
California’s 30th district.
Throughout the course of the debate I paid close attention to the
strategies each candidate was implementing. Both candidates spoke of their impressive tenures
representing valley citizens, but what they engaged in mostly was criticizing
each other’s record. Both
candidates attempted to increase the severity of their opponents faults or
shortcomings, for example Howard Berman had printed out the days when Brad
Sherman missed a significant vote, and claimed his absence was representative
of his work ethic, when in fact Sherman could have been in the valley hosting
town hall meetings and paying closer attention to his constituents. Brad Sherman claimed that Berman continuously
votes among party lines to maintain his political clout, when in fact his votes
may be derived from deeply ingrained personal beliefs that happen to adhere to
strict democratic ideology. Both
candidates made exaggerated inferences based off of conjecture and an
inadequate amount of facts. This
debate illustrates a flaw that can be applied to a new modern political
practice, the campaign platform that focuses on the negatives of the
challenger, rather than the positives of the candidate.
The basic idea of a plurality vote is to gain the most votes
out of any candidate. How does a candidate go about doing so? They
inform their constituents of their experience, beliefs, and characteristics, in
order to persuade them to vote in a favorable way. A public servant is able to serve his public well because
his constituency shares his beliefs; their analogous values allow him to make
decisions on behalf of the citizens, almost as if they themselves were
voting. This is the idea the
framers strove to achieve, but life undergoes gradual change, and due to
certain events, the modern political world has adapted.
American citizens first became skeptical of our government
during the 1960’s, our global conflicts in the east and the ways our government
chose to handle those events created widespread distrust. The Vietnam war inspired riots and
revolt, primarily among the younger voters, who coincidentally now dictate
elections. Following the Vietnam
War, the Watergate scandal was released to the public, and citizens now felt
that they could no longer trust the activities of politicians, and the entire
country, now embraced the widespread hate for government that was prevalent among
younger citizens. Ford’s pardoning
of Nixon further established to the citizens the perceived selfish nature of
our government and its influential figures. After the turbulent era that included the Vietnam War, violent
student protests, and increasing inflation, citizens demanded they be more
informed on the political process.
Soon politicians realized it was easier to persuade a voter that the
opposition was wrong, rather than persuading a voter that they are correct. When a politician states a positive off
of their record, it is almost always met with opposition and skepticism. But now that citizens are used to
politicians acting in a self-fulfilling manner, when they come across a claim
accusing a politician of being selfish, it is easy for them to perceive it as
fact.
Now we transition back into the 2012 election, an election
that was predicted to be the most vicious election of all time, and it has not
failed to meet its expectations.
Various topics are now the center of controversial debate, the economy,
women’s rights, and our various wars.
Both parties are able to formulate negative aspects of potential litigation
by the opposing party. Millions of dollars are spent on painting opponents in a
negative light, and the most inrtiguing aspect of this new trend is that many
of these accusations are false. For
example, an organization named Politifact keeps track of various statements
made by a wide array of important figures, and many of the claims these
candidates are making are either false or greatly exaggerated. In modern politics, conventions are now
organized almost for the sole purpose of stripping legitimacy away from their
opposition. We saw republicans do
this during the 1980 Republican Convention when Reagan was successfully able to
convince voters that the economic downturn in the mid 70’s was caused by
Carter’s lack of leadership and poor policy making. This tactic was also implemented by the democrats during the
1996 Democratic Convention, when Bill Clinton was able to portray Bob Dole as a
replica of Newt Gingrich, and associated him with favoring the rich and attempting
to pass anti-women legislation.
The strategy of attacking ones opponent is so widely used
because of its effectiveness. I do
not believe people enjoy speaking negatively about another human, but the
fundamental element that each politician works for is power, and power is
achieved by winning. In modern
politics, people adhere to Machiavelli’s bold statement, “the end justifies the
mean.” The mean by which politicians
currently practice, is degrading the candidacy of their competition, simply
because it works. I personally am
much more persuaded when I hear about the accomplishments and future ambitions
a representative has, not about how poor of a job his competitor is doing, but
I am not like most voters.
I now pose the question, is it possible to achieve, in this
era, a campaign centered around the positives of a candidate? I can confidently say that as long as
there is such substantial political and ideological divide among our country,
that no, it cannot be achieved.
There exist to many rifts among society that prohibit us from coexisting
peacefully together without any quarrels.
All I can predict for certain is the barrage of negative advertisements
that are being rushed to cable companies to be broadcasted nation wide, all
trying to convince you, why “my opposition is wrong.”
 |
| http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/assets_c/2012/03/Republican-and-Democrat-symbols-thumb-500x286.jpg |
