Campaign Shenanigans : Shameful Politics

Show All Rants

by Everett Griffiths
Originally published October 17th, 2002 in the Johnstown Breeze under the title:"Political Ads: Be glad your TV has glass," p4, 8.

It is approaching November once more, and that can only mean one thing: the annual invasion of our television sets by thirty second melodramas that attempt to support a candidate. Before I was of voting age I paid little attention to such intrusions on my prime time programming, but now that I am endowed with suffrage and its obligation to be informed, these bilious ads have left me both confused and nauseated. My initial response was “Are these really the only choices we have?” I understand that candidates must make their positions on issues clear, but this can surely be done in a less damaging fashion. It is one thing to point out the opponent’s stance on an issue if it helps to underline your own, but it is quite another to lob misleading statements that are largely taken out of context. It is more immature still to include the opponent’s phone number and encourage viewers to “call Mr. so-and-so and tell him he should do such-and-such.” What’s next? “Kick Me” signs? Writing candidate’s names on bathroom walls?

Out of curiosity, I decided to call some of those phone numbers for myself. Yes, they do actually ring through to the offices of the candidates they indicate, except in one case where I got ahold of the candidate’s daughter. And yes, some people have actually been foolish enough to give some poor campaign worker an earful because of the puerile prodding of the advertisements.

If you read the fine print, you will see that they are not funded by the candidates themselves; instead, they are almost always funded by extremist special interest groups using soft money. I was told that according to campaign laws, ads funded by soft money cannot openly say VOTE for someone. Instead, they urge voters to CALL someone, which creates chaos for the candidates and leaves voters like myself baffled. Evidently, these special interest groups view elected officials as nothing more than pawns to further their own political agendas. These soft money ads are created without consulting the candidates they supposedly endorse; the candidates see the ads for the first time with the rest of us – when they air on local television. That means that even if Mr. Rogers ran for office you might be tempted to believe that he was responsible for the vile slanders and fightin’ words. Of course, the campaign offices can urge the special interest groups to stop airing certain ads, but it seems that this doesn’t happen very often; unfortunately, these ads are just part of how things are done.

Such aggressive campaign tactics are an embarrassment to the organizations who utilize them. Rather than abiding by the graceful principles of truthful representation and fair play, these organizations are engaged in hurling filthy accusations at one another like monkeys throwing feces. I am not alone in thinking that these ads do not achieve the goals that they strive for: according to Wayne Allard’s campaign office, Tom Strickland has spent twice as much money on negative ads and – perhaps as a result – he is behind in the polls.

Good leadership does not blame its problems on someone else. In ancient Asia, when an official made a grievous error in the political ring or on the battlefield, he often took his own life to amend for his mistake. In modern day Japan, CEO’s and managers will frequently resign if their decisions have damaged the reputation of their companies; sometimes they will go as far as to take responsibility for more than they were actually accountable for. When General Lee suffered a large defeat during the Civil War, he drafted a letter claiming full responsibility and offered his resignation to Jefferson Davis; it was denied, of course, and Lee went back to work. What would today’s special interest groups do in such a situation? They would probably point the finger at someone else and invite you to “call Mr. so-and-so and blame him for such-and-such.” If their campaign ads tell us anything it is that most of these groups will not accept responsibility and therefore clearly don’t deserve it. I am reminded of suicide bombers who seem to think that blowing themselves up is somehow constructive. If these groups really want to change things, they ought to build up with actions instead of tear down with words; I think we are all tired of hearing their haughty complaints.

I have begun to keep track of these malicious campaign ads so that they might influence how I cast my vote; I blacklist any special interest group that has engaged in negative ads. The candidates who use the fewest will win my vote; I expect my elected officials to abstain from such petty displays of immaturity. So far, I have a bone to pick with the following: the labor union AFLCIA, NORAL, The League of Conservation Voters, The Sierra Club, Every Child Matters, and especially the Colorado Republican and Democratic Parties (as well as their national counterparts). It is disappointing that the parties that are supposedly supporting the candidates are knee deep in the manure pile. By running such ads, the Republican and Democratic parties have revealed themselves as over-funded special interest groups.

My father tells me that when he was in college, his classmates were staunchly for or against a particular party, but nowadays I think most people my age are just sick of all political groups, and these ads clearly show why. The only way to get any perspective on a candidate is to ignore the ads and read the newspapers and watch debates. Election day is coming, and I encourage people to vote intelligently and see past the mud thrown in their eyes. Happy voting.