It seems to me that the presidential debate has devolved into a contest of who can dig up the most controversial quote said by someone connected to one of the candidates.  This type of contest, in my opinion, breeds the sort of personal attacks that the Partnership for a Secure America was set up to counteract. Accepting these attacks as the modus operandi of politics will only create further tolerance for them when Republicans and Democrats actually govern. 

People make their decisions on political leaders based on a wide variety of factors.  These range from their stances on issues to the candidate’s professed values to simply a gut feeling that a voter has about a candidate.  When it comes to foreign policy the candidates have made their views fairly clear and there have been worthwhile debates during the primary season about their foreign policy positions.  What is concerning to me is that it seems that our political debate has degenerated into a gotcha contest where the media (and frequently an opposing campaign) attempts to dig up the most offensive quote said by someone associated with a candidate…. even better if that quote is immortalized on Youtube. 

The examples in the past several months are plentiful, especially on the Democratic side.  Back in December Bill Shaheen stepped down from Clinton’s campaign for suggesting that Obama’s drug use would be ammunition for Republican attacks.  More recently, Samantha Power stepped down from the Obama campaign after calling Clinton a monster.  Geraldine Ferraro stepped down from the Clinton campaign after arguing that Obama is such a strong candidate because he’s black.  And, of course, we’re now dealing with Obama’s association with his pastor who has become well known for some of his hateful sermons.  While the words of people associated with our candidates have taken center stage in the news, the words and policy positions of our candidates get sidelined as we, the American public, focus on this “gotcha” game.  The fact of the matter is that every political candidate has at one time or another been associated with a person with whom he/she did not agree.  Sometimes those people say offsensive or hateful things.  Sometimes they simply make mistakes.  The real test of a candidate is not whether or not he/she associated with a person who had a divergent view, but rather whether or not the candidate agrees with those views.  In every case I’ve mentioned the candidates clearly denounced the views of their controversial associates, and that, in my opinion, should have been enough. 

Some will point out that it is valid to judge a candidate by the company that he/she keeps.  I do not argue here that this should not be part of our judgement of candidates.  Rather, in the voters’ priority list of considerations, I would contend that this is much lower on the scale than their policy positions, their judgement, and their values.  The most telling aspect of these is not what a candidate’s associate says, but rather what the candidate him/herself says and does.  Unfortunately, if you were to watch recent media reports about the election, you’d get the impression that the viewpoint of a candidate’s associate overshadows all other considerations. 

We have all been in situations where people we know have expressed offensive viewpoints.  They might be our friends, our relatives, or colleagues.  How many times have we chosen to stay silent?  Perhaps we justify our silence on the basis that, while we may be offended by some words we believe that on the whole the person is a good and decent human being.  The fact of the matter is that we all have faults and the people our candidates associate themselves with also have faults.  While the campaign period does give us the opportunity to examine every aspect of a candidate and his/her beliefs, we generally only catch a snapshot of those associated with a candidate – frequently just an inflammatory quote.

If we choose to continue down this path of digging up controversial statements by anyone associated with a candidate, we are in for a long and disappointing campaign.  Based on recent news coverage one could easily conclude that the most important factor in a candidate are the divisive words of his/her associates.  Wouldn’t we all benefit more from a campaign based on a candidate’s ideas and policies? 

No related posts.