"We can change things if we pay attention to how we live and treat others. All we've got to do is show respect. People are so afraid now. The way of life they were taught turned out to be different. It's like they were taken in with a lie. .... Nobody knows where to turn. So people are angry and only look to take care of themselves. What we have to do is make the system accountable and make it change. .... The more bad you give out, the more you get. If you give good, you get good. Sometimes we miss how simple it is. One day we will get the message. It's better we use our minds and sort it out for ourselves." -- Tadodaho Leon Shenanadoah; To Become A Human Being, with Steve Wall; page 28.
As 2007 comes to an end, and the presidential primary season kicks into a higher gear, it is interesting to watch the increasing intensity of the negative campaign tactics. It is happening in both the democratic and republican races, and the primary coverage in most of the corporate media sources reflects that. What’s more, we even see these same vicious personal attacks aimed at democratic candidates on progressive political web sites, including the Democratic Underground.
I have read some comments that suggest that DU is always prone to acrimonious debate during the primaries. Certainly, negative campaigning has become the tradition in contests on the local, state, and national levels. However, as this is actually just the second presidential primary experience on DU, I would suggest that it not so much a DU tradition, as an error that can and should be avoided whenever possible.
In all elections, those running a campaign break the public into three basic groups: {a} those who always support their candidate; {b} those who will always oppose their candidate; and {c}the "undecided," who often decide the outcome of an election. Those who belong to either groups a or b tend to decide who they will support or oppose based upon specific issues. These tend to be the party’s platform issues, including positions on national security, the economy, the environment, and social policies.
The undecided folks are viewed as being less issue-oriented, and more prone to making decisions based upon two things: personality, and emotionally-charged "social" issues. The republican party is largely responsible for the focus on the negative issues, starting with Richard Nixon. It was Nixon’s appearance during the debate with John Kennedy, when the power of the negative was recognized: those listening to the radio believed Nixon won the debate, but those watching tv saw Kennedy as the clear winner. The "group c" folks who viewed the two men side bt side were swayed by Kennedy’s attractive persona, and turned off by the Nixon perspiring gangster look.
In 1964, the democrats didn’t have to portray Goldwater as an extremist who had a reckless trigger finger. The infamous Schwartz & Bernbach "daisy" commercial, which aired but once, was a work of art that was considered too extreme for continued play. But the door had opened, and the negative force in the form of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew walked through it in 1968, and the desire to have "negative information" on political opposition would play a role in the series of crimes known as "Watergate."
In the late summer of 1988, Michael Dukakis was on his way to a victory over VP George Bush. However, the republican machine was able to combine two Dukakis errors (the tank ride and the weak response to a debate question) along with asinine Willie Horton and pledge of allegiance commercials, to sway the targeted "group c" voters.
In 2000 and 2004, the republican’s negative campaigning reached new lows. Two good democratic candidates would "lose" to the least qualified person ever to serve as president, in part because of the inability of their campaigns to respond to gutter attacks.
There is some truth to the claim that while the general public claims to be offended by negative campaigning, that the negative commercials and personal attacks are often the things that stand out the most. In a general election, being viewed as weak (Dukakis on if Miss Kitty was savagely attacked by a Willie Horton-type) or a flip-flopper ( "I actually voted against this before I voted for it") has hurt democratic candidates. Too often, democratic campaigns have shown a frustrating inability to respond to even the most obscene lies: Kerry’s service in Vietnam was cowardly, while Bush2 was a war hero.
The result appears to be an increasing attempt by some advocates for democratic candidates to ape the republican tactics. This can include gutter tactics by those who are paid and unpaid campaign supporters. It also has involved those with outside agendas, such as the coordinated media smear on Howard Dean for the infamous "scream."
This year, a number of democrats have begun to speak out against the vicious gutter attacks. It’s one thing to have a serious, even heated debate on the issues, and on each candidate’s history and qualifications. But that is distinct from the attempts to appeal to what Senator Robert Kennedy referred to as "the darker impulses" of the public. We see some of the hate-mongers saying things like they were only joking, or that they really like the targets of their filthy personal attacks. These weak attempts to excuse their dishonest behaviors are just more lies.
We are approaching one of the most important elections in our nation’s history. We really are at a crossroads. We cannot afford to continue down the path that the current administration has led us on, if we hope to remain a Constitutional democracy. We need to change if we hope to master the changes needed to restore that which is good about America.
If we focus on the negative, the negative force promotes people like Bush and Cheney. If we focus on the positive, we will promote the leadership needed to move in a different direction.
Even on a relatively small stage like the Democratic Underground, we can begin to make those changes. I doubt that a single individual has had their mind changed by the gutter shots aimed at various candidates. Nothing positive comes from it. But throughout history, every dictator and oppressive government has known that if you can "unite" a population in hatred that they will ignore their own low level of being, a will be easily controlled. This nation is on that path today. Let’s get off it.
There are going to be attempts to lower the standards of discussion at every level of debate in this election cycle. That will include debates in the national media, and on the internet forums. None of us are going to be able to stop that from happening. But we can avoid feeding the flames. That would make an honorable DU tradition.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
