Posted by
Patrick Henry on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:23:46 AM
Pursuant to the 2008 presidential elections, both major party candidates promised
America "a different kind of campaign." There were high-sounding pledges about
"sticking to the issues" and staying above the negativity and mud-slinging of the
past. Needless to say, what we heard about is not what we got. It may well be that
modern politicians don't know any other way to campaign than the "down and
dirty" mudfests that seem to typify current electoral politics. So what might "a
different kind of campaign" actually look like?
It would certainly begin with the issues that are important to Americans. In a really
different kind of election, candidates would go beyond glittering generalities and over-
blown promises to explain to Americans WHAT they propose to do, HOW they plan
to do it, HOW MUCH they think it will cost and WHERE the money is going to
come from to pay for it. I realize that this would require a great deal of homework
for the candidates, but isn't it, after all, a reasonable expectation? Not only would
it create increased clarity about how a candidate would govern, it would generate an
actual standard of accountability that would get us beyond just voting for those we
"like" instead of those we "don't like."
A different kind of campaign would be one in which the major media objectively
reported election related news, instead of choosing a side or a candidate and becoming
an unaplogetic advocacy arm. In our present reality so-called "journalists" have
convinced themselves that it's perfectly appropriate to inject their own poltical views
into their reporting, and spin the news to favor their own candidate. This is a direct
strike against the public who ought to have the right to make up their own minds based
on an objective, fair, balanced and "unspun" version of who said what and what actually
occurred. In the current media milieu, a discerning reader or viewer is well-advised to
take EVERYTHING reported with a grain of salt, bearing fully in mind that pure
reporting, political and otherwise, is virtually extinct, and a great deal of what is put
out for public consumption is tasked to advance the outlet's own political agenda.
A different kind of campaign would set a higher and more civil tone. That does
not mean a Pollyanna-ish avoidance of what incumbents have done wrong, which
bad apples opponents have associated with or how dangerous their policies might be.
It does mean a responsibility to demonstrate how a candidate's own policies are better, what
they would do differently and how those they have aligned with are nobler, purer and
higher-minded. In other words, for every negative there should have to be a positive
counterpoint. Campaigns that focus mainly on how bad the other guy is leave frustrated
and uninformed voters deciding which candidate is the lesser of two evils. And who
wants to vote for that, regardless of party affiliation?
In a different kind of campaign, the public, not the campaigns would determine what
are and are not relevant issues. Today, campaigns tend to harp on whatever themes they
believe will interest voters and disadvantage opponents. If they have questionable past
associations they decry mention of those by demanding that opponents "get back to
the issues," subtly denying that character IS a very big issue, that the voting public
has a right to know about past alliances and performance, and using "Swift Boat,"
"racism" or other deflectors to force a change of subject. The net result is that
campaigns routinely spend as much time trying to obscure what they don't want
voters to know as they do peddling their unspecific promises that they DO expect
voters to believe. This is a waste of public time and a disservice to voters.
Finally, a different campaign would do more -- not less -- to expose its candidate
to public dialogue. Barack Obama's encounters with Pastor Rick Warren and Joe
"The Plumber" Wurzelbacher nearly undid him, because they forced him to divulge
in a public and undisgused way his commitments to abortion and socialism. His
campaign did everything humanly possible to keep him out of unscripted situations,
thus denying the American public candid access to his thought processes. Ditto the
Republican campaign in their "handling" of Sarah Palin. Knowing that she wasn't
yet polished and ready for the media's "gotcha" questions, they virtually hid her
away. And their attempts to remake her nearly offset the benefits her genuineness
and the "down home" style she brought to the campaign. Let the candidates be the
canddiates, not some manipulated "shadow version" of reality, suitably vetted
for public consumption. And THEN let the voters decide.
Leaping back through the "rabbit hole" into reality, I concede it is probable
that such a campaign will never occur. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't. And
the candidate courageous enough to hold himself/herself, the media and voters
accountable to such an open process, may very well be the ONE who can really
bring the change so desperately needed in American governance.