There have been a lot of change since I posted part 1 of this topic. It’s down to Clinton and Obama for the Democrats, and McCain for the Republicans. This isn’t news for someone reading shortly after I post, but in six months, a year, ten years, it may not be as easy to remember what happened when.
In the past week, Obama said goodbye to Samantha Power, an adviser who called Mrs. Clinton a “monster,” while Mrs. Clinton said goodbye to Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to ever chosen to run for vice president for saying that Barack Obama is in the presidential race only because he is black. Apologies and accusations continue to ricochet off the sides of campaign vehicles and walls of media.
Something I heard on talk radio (the mighty WGN 720 AM from Chicago) got me to thinking about the prevalence of sniping among the candidates and parties. On a regional level, there was a special election to replace Dennis Hastert (R), Illinois’s 14th District Congressman, for the remainder of his term. Jim Oberweis was the Republican candidate, and Bill Foster was the Democrat. The special election was held last Saturday, March 8, but it’s not over. It will gear up again for the November elections when a candidate will be chosen to serve an entire term. The first part of the campaign was nasty, and the next few months promise to be worse.
Negative campaigning is more than an irritating phenomenon. It’s an insight to how the candidates will handle emotionally-charged challenges when in office. When a candidate’s character and/or message is attacked, do s/he fight back, roll over, or find a middle road? If a foreign prime minister makes negative claims about our president, what should we expect of our leader? Here’s a potential scenario:
King ABC of the Royal Kingdom of the Alphabet (RKA) doesn’t like the American president. ABC holds a news conference to sling buckets of mud. Every slimy smear is based in provable truth. President XYZ used illegal drugs as a young person. As a senator, XYZ voted against sending aid to RKA following a massive tornado outbreak. This resulted in a massive loss of life that could have been prevented with minimal assistance from the mighty USA. As a college student, XYZ openly advocated adopting a communist model to replace the current capitalist structure employed by the USA. Finally, ABC accuses XYZ of pretending to have a beneficial agenda when the true aim is to reshape the nation in an anti-democratic fashion.
How should XYZ respond? King ABC has rather important standing in the international community, and people listen to him. His angry words have the potential to incite bad feeling about XYZ, and many will side with ABC. Do XYZ’s people find dirt on ABC and throw it to the frenzied media? Does XYZ ignore ABC’s comments? Does XYZ attempt to reach out to ABC to find common ground? Does XYZ fly into a rage and threaten sanctions or embargoes, or worse? Does XYZ respond to the accusations in a way meant to explain why they are or aren’t significant issues?
Of course each situation has its unique variables. Of course it depends on the people and issues involved. And of course public opinion is important. Any of the above choices could be utilized in responsible manners. It’s the choice of when, where, and what that makes the difference. How diplomatic is XYZ? Can XYZ stand firm or bend when appropriate? We don’t want a president who will be so rigid that s/he breaks when tested. On the other hand, we also don’t want a president who will bend to other people’s wills when firmness is demanded.
Is political mud slinging unnecessary or inappropriate? I don’t like it any more than the next voter, but I would suggest that it serves a purpose. It’s a facet of an elected official’s service that we often don’t consider. When I go to vote, I will certainly take into consideration the give-and-take between the candidates. No less important, I will want to know if any candidate develops a reputation for being kind, nasty, responsible, snobbish, and so on.
In the Foster-Oberweis campaign, they both agreed to appear for radio interview on the John Williams show in early March. The show was part of the “Hometown Voices” series on WGN radio, broadcasting on remote at a location in the 14th District. Both candidates got caught in traffic. Both candidates did their interviews over the phone. After being interviewed, one candidate chose to move on to the location of their next appearance. The other candidate, although late and already interviewed, chose to arrive on location anyway. Which one showed more respect for his hosts and voters? The negative ads may not demonstrate that respect, but the simple act of showing up as promised spoke volumes. To be sure, his halo wasn’t untarnished, but that choice to show may have acted as restore some of that golden glow. Guess which candidate won the special election.
I’m not an expert. I don’t always get it right when voting (Gov. Blagojevich being my major voting gaff), but I think I have a semi-intelligent read on some politics. I know what I wish for our country, and I can generally choose a candidate who isn’t so bad. I’m not going to say who I plan to vote for come November. I just hope I’m not disappointed, again. (Thanks, Rod.)
RB
