“Politically Fiscal David versus Goliath” or “Here We Go Again”
Jeff Akins

<BACK

Baring some unforeseen circumstances (significant Kerry skeletons or Bush impeachment), it looks like the two-party battle for the White House will be between Kerry and Bush. This Presidential election could be one of the most fiercely contested in decades. By fiercely, I refer to the use of negative campaigning, commonly termed “dirty politics” that has unfortunately become a popular political strategy. Regrettably the current electoral process seems to mandate that candidates to be viable they must amass millions in war chests to run campaigns. Perhaps due of this excess political wealth some strategists rationalize applying small amounts for dirty politics. Whatever the stimulus, dirty politics is undesirable but not inevitable and voters might change trends. How election contests are waged, particularly slanderous campaigns, directly reflects on the candidates. If voters recognize this consideration and react decisively, perhaps good changes will result.

In an ideal world, political campaigns would be based on proposed policies and administrative ability. Unfortunately, as many are aware, negativism and dirty politics has become the norm. Certainly not a palatable norm in the eyes of most voters but commonplace nonetheless. We hope that candidates will vie to attract voters through her or his vision for the future but instead, many use “negative ads” to portray purported flaws in their opponent(s). Recent campaign finance reform, though legally contested … which says something in and of itself, attempted to reduce the use of negative ads. Some forthright politicians have even tried openly challenging their opponents to wage “clean” campaigns, although inevitably it seems the losing candidate resorts to “dirty politics” (an oxymoronic phrase?). I wonder if Bush or Kerry, perhaps both, will resort to “negative ads” or similar non-policy politics in the coming election.

Some political analysts feel that because Bush has the dramatically larger financial war chest, he can afford to bankroll covert investigations, leaked gossip to the press or slanderous TV and radio advertisements. The Iowa caucus appeared case in point. Iowa Republicans disassociated from the Democratic caucus aired attack ads against Dean, the perceived front-runner. One ad had a farmer saying he thinks "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." then the farmer's wife finishes the sentence: "... body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs." So maybe Bush as fiscal Goliath has spare cash for dirty politics albeit sometimes negative ads are “paid for” by non-descript Republicans allowing deniable culpability while still airing dirty laundry.

Others argue that, though he has David-sized campaign wealth, Kerry may resort to non-policy politics in the upcoming campaign because he is underdog with nothing to lose. Stories are already afloat questioning Bush’s AWOL status in the National Guard and his failure to fight in Vietnam as Kerry had. Republicans have seemingly already begun to counter this possibility by leaking pictures of Kerry with “Hanoi Jane” and insinuating unpatriotic actions. Regardless of who starts, the voters should recognize that negativistic campaigns reflect the candidate’s character regardless of directly connectable
” paid for” affiliations.

If a candidate truly wished to run a clean campaign, they would contact their greater political party and, to borrow from Nancy Reagan, “just say no” to dirty politics. I question if such a noble trait will arise from either Republican or Democrat, which is why I am work toward establishing a viable third party. Democrats and Republicans have become indistinct form one another when campaign season is in full swing. Their policies and platforms may differ somewhat but their tactics often stink. Diversionary tactics such as attack ads are often developed by shrewd consultants that both parties have utilized extensively. Heinous political advisors pervert the American political system for greed of money or power, sometimes both, and I hope Americans begin to question this unscrupulous behavior. Better yet, let your vote express our disgust of dirty politics.

One way to instill some political integrity is to demand loudly, clearly and often, that your favored candidate must refrain from non-policy (dirty) politics or you will either vote for an opponent or not vote at all. Regardless of political allegiance, write your candidate now stating such a threat in hope that this Presidential election, and future elections, are not something that makes us all hold our noses in revulsion at the behaviors of those who may become elected to positions of power. Demand campaign integrity, campaign finance and related reforms to abolish such childish behaviors.

Perhaps then more then forty percent of Americans will participate in true democracy instead of the greater percentage apathetically not voting, all the while muttering how “the rich get richer, the poor get the shaft and special interest lobbying displaces my vote so why try.” Demand change now and apply consequences if we are ignored. Take back America.

I for one am working for the establishment of a viable and necessary third American political party. I see little difference between the workings of Democrats (be they “far-left” or centrist) and Republicans (be they fiscal conservative, neo-conservative or the once proclaimed compassionate conservative). Failures by their leaders, past and present, simply causes more people to wonder why Americans allow money and special interests to corrupt our democracy. That said, help me take America back from these corrupting influences and give the power back to the majority versus the self-selected.

Copyright © Jeff Akins. All rights reserved

<BACK