We Canadians are in the midst of an election campaign. The gloves are off and mud is flying in all directions. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the consequence of fighting dirty is showing the world that you are dirty. History is instructive. I recall a friend saying he could never trust Jean Cretién because he speaks out of the side of his mouth. That was a gut-level response to a cynical attack ad sponsored by the Conservative Party of Canada in 1993. Whoever produced the ad counted on voters responding intuitively rather than rationally. As it happened, the attack backfired. The rational answer to the attack was that the asymmetry of Cretién's face is a result of Bell's Palsy and has nothing to do with honesty. The outcome of the 1993 election was a landslide victory for the Liberals. There was likely more to it than a reaction to a dirty ad, but the point remains that we are intuitively vulnerable and an election provides opportunity, means and motive to influence voters at the gut level.
Don't trust your gut. There are politicians messing with it. Lately it's the Liberals editing the words of the Conservative leader to colour his meaning. Shame.
Politicians, if you want votes, speak to us as rational adults. Explain your policies and the principles that inform them. Show us something we can vote for. We can see for ourselves what to vote against.
I've modified my thoughts on so-called "attack ads" over the years. I still hate the mudslinging, but I realize that some amount of it is inevitable in our political campaigns. Campaigns are run by professionals whose whole lives have been dedicated to figuring out what works. And, for good or ill, the voting public has been trained to repond to those ads. They work.
ReplyDeleteA few campaigns back, one of the "nicer" parties decided not to play the game. And despite having a very good, very popular set of policies on offer, the voters ignored them and they lost substantial numbers of votes. They have since re-examined their campaign practices and you will find they too running some of those "So and so tells lies" kind of ads.
What this means to me, the average voter who hates mud, is that I have to manage my own reactions. I need to objectively examine the platforms, the voting records, the unbiased analysis (or as close as I can find it) and make my decision based on those things.
Because I also know that it's very, very important that I not get put off by what annoys me and neglect my responsibility to engage and to vote. If too many of us opt out, we end up getting the gov't we deserve. And it just might be the one who slung the most mud!
I will vote of course. The flip side is that every dirty trick has me looking elsewhere for someone to trust. My vote will send a message even if it goes to a loser.
DeleteOh I've voted for lots of "losers" in my day. I've spent hours explaining to my own kids and grandkids and anyone else who needed persuading, that even those votes send an important message. Election reform might be nice; who has that in their platform? ;-)
ReplyDeleteWhat if winning means losing? What if the opposite of losing is belonging. What if Mark 8:36 has it right? Anyway, you get my vote.
Delete