If someone were to support turning rape victims away from hospitals, letting men beat their wives, or allowing repeat sex offenders to teach in elementary schools, then their mental stability would probably be in question. If that person were a congressman, voters would boot him or her out of office at the first possible chance.
Fortunately for elementary school students everywhere, no such sociopath currently serves in any elected position on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately for the rest of us, these claims are actual accusations leveled at candidates on both sides of the aisle during this election season.
Granted, political attacks of questionable accuracy have been a major staple of competitive campaigns since the Whigs ridiculed President Martin Van Buren as “Martin Van Ruin” in response to the economic depression during his term. However, there is a line that can be crossed where negative campaigning goes beyond informing voters of a candidate’s flaws and into the realm of ridiculous attempts at character assassination.
In this election cycle, that line has not only been crossed, but is now barely visible at the horizon.
The current electoral climate is very much based upon anger and disgust at status quo politics. While it can lead to an energized voting base eager for change, this anger has also found its way into the candidates themselves.
With lips trembling and fists clenched, they level irrational accusations against their opponents in an attempt to win at all costs. It appears this practice has derailed campaigning off of the tracks of debating about the actual issues at hand and into the ditch of competing for the coveted most outlandish claim award.
For instance, Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle recently released an ad claiming that her opponent, Democrat Harry Reid, has “been in a conga line” while his constituents are “in the unemployment line” and has “been hanging out with supermodels” while “Nevada families are barely hanging on.” It would appear that campaigning has reached rock bottom.
Seriously, the only way that it could get any worse is if someone accused an opponent of being a puppy killer.
Oh wait, Pat Quinn, the Democratic Party’s candidate for governor in Illinois, already has that one covered. In an ad that featured a woman holding a cute puppy, he accused Republican opponent Bill Brady of wanting to “mass-euthanize sheltered dogs and cats in gas chambers.”
Both of these cases are obvious distortions of the truth. Even when the ethical implications of lying to attain public office are completely disregarded, the lack of effort exerted by candidates in creating their lies is, quite frankly, disrespectful to the American public.
If these slanderous ads were well-crafted, it would at least show that candidates feared the possibility of voters seeing through their deception. When poorly constructed ads that border on insanity are released, candidates are essentially stating that the voting population is too stupid to see anything other than a race between a glorious knight in shining armor and a maniacally evil bunny-stomping dictator who hates Christmas.
In response to these attack ads, a simple question needs to be raised. Which is more probable: that a well respected politician “wants to inject 11-year olds with a controversial drug for sexually transmitted diseases” or that a candidate is twisting an opponent’s voting record in order to get elected?
Fortunately, voters have, to some extent, been able to cut through this emotionally charged climate.
Both Florida Democrat Alan Grayson’s ad that called his opponent “Taliban Dan” for wanting to impose his “religious fanatic” views upon America and New York Republican Carl Paladino’s accusation that his opponent had an affair, neither of which came with a shred of evidence, have backfired. These two candidates almost immediately experienced a drop in the polls and are now struggling to overcome the negative perception that they are, in fact, bombastic buffoons.
It is time for candidates to stop this constant barrage of fallacies in campaign ads. It does not take a genius to understand that neither Republican nor Democratic politicians support turning rape victims away from hospitals. In order to end this cyclic clown circus, both voters and politicians, regardless of ideology, must demand accountability from those who want to lead this country. After all, they are public servants.
John Brinkerhoff is a freshman majoring in political science and communication studies. His column runs biweekly on Mondays.
