Modern Politics

Two weeks ago I attended a debate between Congressman Brad Sherman and Congressman Howard Berman, two candidates competing for California’s 30^th 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