Negative Campaigns

So I see this on CNN.com this morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/06/campbell.brown.campaign/index.html

And I read it and I think – this is all she’s got?  And she gets on CNN.com?  Puh-leeze.

Yes – this is a blatant attempt at getting my stuff linked into somewhere people might read it. Minimally, at least, I think I make a better point. 

————Excerpt from previous blog post titled  A Plea for Political Ads ————

Instead of spending your time and money telling me how bad the other guy is and telling me what he does or doesn’t believe and how it isn’t in my best interest, how about you tell me what YOUR views are.  Tell me what YOU believe.  Tell me what YOUR plans are and what YOU would like to accomplish.  Then let me make up my own mind.

This whole idea of getting elected using “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach doesn’t work. It doesn’t work in geo-politics (we backed Iraq against Iran, and the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Russians – see how well all that turned out?) and it doesn’t work in domestic politics.

What bothers me is that negative political ads don’t give me the whole story.  And in order for me to get the whole story, I have to spend my time looking up the accusations to see whether or not they’re true. Wouldn’t it be better if I was spending my time confirming what you told me about yourself instead of trying to verify what you told me about the other guy?

Let’s look at it this way:

Let’s say that you are out with a small group of your friends and you spy a very attractive woman. Your friends have spied her too.  And she has seen you and your group. 

So you sneak away from your friends to go have a chat with her.  Basically what you are going to try to do is to sell yourself to her.  Furthermore, you know that at least one of your friends is going to try to do the same thing at some point during the course of the evening.

Now in order to get her attention and to get her to go out with you, you probably try to sell your best points – convince her why she should take you up on your offer of a date, that she’d have a great time and it would make her happy.  What you probably DON’T do is spend your time trying to convince her why she should not go out with any of your friends.  You probably don’t say “That guy, he votes pro-life.  And the other one over there?  He cheats on his girlfriends.  The one in the red shirt spends more money than he makes.”

You don’t do this because if you did, the impression you would ACTUALLY make upon her is that

a) You have no actual merits of your own to tout;

b) You spend a lot of time criticizing other people instead of bettering yourself.  

Furthermore, you have now demoted yourself to being only “the best that group has to offer” instead of “the best possible choice there is.”  And if she’s smart, she’s also now offended that you think that her mind is so easily molded that your opinion of these other people will automatically now be HER opinion of these other people.

Does this sound at all familiar?

Studies show that our reactions to politicians is very much an emotional response – not unlike our reactions to our favorite sports teams.  While we rationalize and rationalize and rationalize why we vote this way or that way, in a lot of cases it comes down to “I feel this way about this person” or this party or this political view.

And I think this is why negative ads are at best, ineffective, and at worst, insulting. 

So please, stop it.  Stop it.  Stop it. Stop it.  Tell me why YOU are the person I should vote for, not why he/she is the person I should vote against.  Because if I don’t agree with your reasons why I should vote against that person, and you haven’t told me why I should vote for you, then maybe I just won’t bother to vote at all.

And we wonder why we have such a low percentage of voter turnout compared to other democratic countries.

A Plea for Political Ads

I will be the first person to tell you that I am not politically motivated.  I have no interest in office politics (ask any boss I’ve ever worked for) or personal politics, nor do I have all that much interest in Politics with a capital P.

So it will come as no surprise to you that after seeing my first political ad on TV for the upcoming presidential election, I’m done.  I don’t need to see another one.  Not because I don’t care but because I don’t believe anything they say anyhow.

I have an idea. Maybe more like a plea to the major political candidates.

Instead of spending your time and money telling me how bad the other guy is and telling me what he does or doesn’t believe and how it isn’t in my best interest, how about you tell me what YOUR views are.  Tell me what YOU believe.  Tell me what YOUR plans are and what YOU would like to accomplish.  Then let me make up my own mind.

This whole idea of getting elected  ”the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach doesn’t work. It doesn’t work in geo-politics (we backed Iraq against Iran, and the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Russians – see how well all that turned out?) and it doesn’t work in domestic politics.

Furthermore, using tactics like “Joe Dorknut voted against additional funding for cleaning up the environment” assumes that I know so little about how bills are voted on, that I don’t know that what Joe Dorknut voted against was NOT the additional funding, but against the rider that was attached to the bill that would have given Bob Chubbypants 200 new “No Parking” signs for his neighborhood.

What bothers me is that negative political ads don’t give me the whole story.  And in order for me to get the whole story, I have to spend my time looking up the accusations to see whether or not they’re true. Wouldn’t it be better if I was spending my time confirming what you told me about yourself instead of trying to verify what you told me about the other guy?

Let’s look at it this way:

Let’s say that you are out with a small group of your friends and you spy a very attractive woman. Your friends have spied her too.  And she has seen you and your group. 

So you sneak away from your friends to go have a chat with her.  Basically what you are going to try to do is to sell yourself to her.  Furthermore, you know that at least one of your friends is going to try to do the same thing at some point during the course of the evening.

Now in order to get her attention and to get her to go out with you, you probably try to sell your best points – convince her why she should take you up on your offer of a date, that she’d have a great time and it would make her happy.  What you probably DON’T do is spend your time trying to convince her why she should not go out with any of your friends.  You probably don’t say “That guy, he votes pro-life.  And the other one over there?  He cheats on his girlfriends.  The one in the red shirt spends more money than he makes.”

You don’t do this because if you did, the impression you would ACTUALLY make upon her is that a) You have no actual merits of your own to tout, and b) You spend a lot of time criticizing other people instead of bettering yourself.  Furthermore, you have now demoted yourself to being only “the best that group has to offer” instead of “the best possible choice there is.”  And if she’s smart, she’s also now offended that you think that her mind is so easily molded that your opinion of these other people will automatically now be HER opinion of these other people.

Does this sound at all familiar?

Studies show that our reactions to politicians is very much an emotional response – not unlike our reactions to our favorite sports teams.  While we rationalize and rationalize and rationalize why we vote this way or that way, in a lot of cases it comes down to “I feel this way about this person” or this party or this political view.

And I think this is why negative ads are at best, ineffective, and at worst, insulting. 

So please, stop it.  Stop it.  Stop it. Stop it.  Tell me why YOU are the person I should vote for, not why he/she is the person I should vote against.  Because if I don’t agree with your reasons why I should vote against that person, and you haven’t told me why I should vote for you, then maybe I just won’t bother to vote at all.

And we wonder why we have such a low percentage of voter turnout compared to other democratic countries.

“Values Voters”

Again with the CNN.com stories that I probably shouldn’t look at. 

Analysis: Candidates can’t ignore values-based voters 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/15/value.voters/index.html

Now before you think that “value voters” means they’re inexpensive (Value voters – they all live in Value City), the article uses the term “values voters” to (apparently) mean “socially conservative Christians over the age of 18 who intend to cast a ballot in November.”

The article also appears to interchange the terms “faith” and “values” as it pertains to political conservatism.

I think I’m offended.

The implication being made here is that because I am not part of the “christian right” that I do not vote based on my values.  OR the implication is that my values are not based in my faith.

Crap.

I think maybe this is again one of those instances where because there is a group that yells loudly, the presumption is that it must be the voice of the majority.

Also Crap.

I have values.  I have faith.  Sometimes the two meet. But I DON’T think that those things are relevant to selecting who runs our government.  Furthermore, just because someone’s religious beliefs or personal moral values don’t necessarily jibe with mine doesn’t mean they’re not good at their job.  Truthfully I don’t CARE what your personal choices are — just do your job.

Which is not to say that I never vote from a “values” standpoint.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am vehemently pro-choice.  Not because of any particular opinion I have about abortion, but because I don’t think it’s anyone’s business but my own what choices I make. I don’t think it’s right for someone…ANYONE to tell me what is right and what is wrong based on THEIR belief system.  Furthermore I think it is completely wrong for those people to pass laws that foist their morality onto large groups of others.  Preach your beliefs all you want, but keep your morals off my body.

That being said, I don’t typically make election decisions based on my pro-choice stance. Unless, however, the alternative candidate is so pro-life that their being elected has a significant chance of rescinding my right to choose.  

(And for all you conservatives reading this, when you are finished rolling your eyes, consider the fact that the NRA uses exactly this argument to persuade you to vote for their preferred candidate.)

I take this same stance with pro-gay marriage candidates.  I don’t typically vote based on my stance on this issue unless the alternative candidate is bound and determined to remove or limit existing rights and freedoms for gays.  I think they have no business doing this for a variety of reasons I will get into some other day.

So maybe my strongest values are those that believe that we do and should have free will and the ability to make our own choices.  If you strongly believe that abortion is wrong and that gay marriage is wrong that’s fine.  If your religion tells you these things are evil, then fine.  Those who participate in these behaviors will be punished ultimately, yes?  

Religions typically contain an “after life” clause that indicates that if you break the divine laws set down for you, that you will pay the price (sometimes karmically in this life, often in your next life, be it here as a new life-form or in heaven or hell).  So if your belief is so strong that what I may be doing is wrong, then your belief should be strong enough to know that I will pay the price.  You may try to convert me but you cannot force me to believe what you do.  You certainly cannot legislate it.

So we’re back to that.  Legislating morality.  Voting based on values or faith.  Is it really the way we should select our candidates?  Furthermore, is it really the way our candidates should be trying to get elected?

One more thing I’d like you to think about: Our current international issues are complicated by the fact that the states we are dealing with (like Iran) are Theocracies — governments headed by religious leaders and ruled based on the laws laid down in the religious texts. They act based on their religious belief system. We here in the US, who live in what has been a reasonably successful Democratic Republic system of government, complete (ostensibly) with the separation of church and state, tend to see some of these actions and activities as cruel and barbaric. These governments also tend to be oppressive, particularly to the rights of those who do not follow the religion or belief system of the ruling party.

Hmmmmm…

I leave you with these lyrics from the immortal Frank Zappa:

Whoever we are, wherever we’re from
We should have notice by now our behavior is dumb.
And if our chances expect to improve,
It’s gonna take a lot more than trying to remove
The other race, or the other whatever
From the face of the planet altogether. 

You can’t run a race by a book of religion
Not by a heap or a lump or a smidgen.
The foolish rules of ancient date
Designed to make us all feel great
While we fold, spindle and mutilate
Those unbelievers from the neighboring state. 

Politicians and Umpires

I hate it when Politicians say one thing and do another.  Or when you hear things on TV or Radio or read in the Newspaper how some guy has “waffled” on an issue or changed their mind or said something that seems opposite of what they said before.

Who can blame them?  They spend a lot of time worrying about what people think of them (elections have a way of doing that) and then catering to whoever is screaming loudest about the issue du jour (which is not always the same as “popular opinion”).

So I think that all Politicians should spend time in Umpiring school.  There they would learn a valuable lesson that could lead them all the way through their careers. It is this:

Just because they’re yelling at you doesn’t mean you’re wrong.

Courtesy of Joe Garagiola (I think).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 229 other followers