Sunday, November 2, 2014
Most of us have been bombarded by numerous campaign adds on television and radio. Which is nothing special or new. But they seem to be getting dirtier and dirtier. These campaigns seemed to have evolved or should I say devolved into smear campaigns built on defamation of character. These candidates talk about what their opponents won't or don't do. Very few politicians run campaign adds where they actually talk about how they plan to make things better for their constituent's. It seems as if they focus on how they can't make things worse. With that being said the tactics are the same no matter what the party affiliation is. This makes it virtually impossible for a laymen who is not well versed in the subtle nuances of the political landscape to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys. All you see is one smiling stranger after another mentioning names that many of us have never even heard before. While it is true that as citizens our civic duty is to know who our local politicians are, as public servants have an obligation to those they represent. These politicians should make themselves familiar faces as opposed to well dressed talking heads who pull out every trick in the book to either keep their jobs, or get a new job. None of them seem overly sincere or concerned with anything more than beating their opponent. What most don't realize is that there is a huge difference between winning an election and beating your opponent. Elections, simply by virtue of being elections mean that the people think that you are the best possible person for that office, and you are duty bound to deliver. Beating an opponent means just that. It means that they were effectively able to out slander the competition in order to convince people that he or she is a better more likable human being. But does the winner win at the peoples expense? The answer is yes, if he soul purpose was to beat his opponent as oppose to win the election. One is substanantive and the other is NOT.