I am starting to get the impression that one of the requirements of running for public office is having the maturity level of a 9 year old. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh, but I am getting really sick of political campaigns that utilize mud-slinging tactics and overly dramatized commercials that belittle an opponent.
Despite betraying the elementary-school morale of not saying anything if you don't have something nice to say, a campaign based on the negative attributes of an opponent is agonizingly primitive for a handful of other factors as well. If somebody running for office is truly a quality leader, then they should have enough class to convince the voting public of their own positive characteristics.
In the battle for gaining voter support, it seems that political candidates are actually competing to see who can stoop to the lowest level to knock their opponent down. I hope I am not the only one that sees these actions as very immature and even childish, yet they are being carried out by people who are trying to reach the upper levels of our government.
I recently saw a ludicrous commercial paid for by the Republican Party of Wisconsin that portrays Jim Doyle at his home throwing away blatantly important file folders. I do not mean to point the finger only at Republicans, since both parties are guilty of producing ridiculous television spots. However, this could influence somebody who does not have any desire to seek out the truth of the accusations made, and even one voter influenced is too many.
Another sad display occurred in the relatively recent mayoral election in my hometown, when one of the candidates actually mailed out a 17-page packet of information that outlined his opponent's supposed inabilities and past mistakes. Now that is pathetic. It is shameful to think about the time, money and effort that were sunk into this particular venture. Although I cannot predict how many voters were persuaded by this, the fact that these tactics have descended into local politics shows that they must be effective on some level.
Furthermore, people who were influenced by the information listed on the brochure were blind to basic reasoning skills. The majority of the claims made in the pamphlet consisted of quotes taken out of context, unfortunate events blown out of proportion and statistics misused to prove a point. If someone had truly made enough mistakes to warrant a 17-page list, they would probably be sitting in jail and not running for mayor.
The fact that negative advertising campaigns are increasingly prevalent leads me to believe that both political parties think they are effective, which is embarrassing. I don't understand how a voter can simply accept some sort of embellished material about a candidate at face value. This problem is especially frustrating since the person or group paying for the campaign is directly competing with the subject of the negativity. I sincerely hope that voters in this country are able to look beyond all this foolishness and make a decision based on critical analysis and facts.
The practice of slinging mud at an opponent illustrates a cheap-shot style of politics that public leaders should be above. What sort of platform can you be running on if you have to use your resources simply to make your opponent look worse than you? I am irritated because if a candidate was truly worthy of holding an important public office, then their own credentials and experience would make them the logical choice regardless of the competing party.
It is beyond upsetting to see our country's elected officials'we may even see them as role models'engage in such cheap tactics to win an election. In a time of political and corporate dishonesty, it would certainly be refreshing to see a political candidate win an election based purely on integrity and leadership ability. In addition, an election based solely on the positive contributions and ideas of each candidate will produce a winner that is not viewed as the lesser of two evils, but rather the better of two leaders.
