Perhaps it is a little early in this political process to be getting tired of some parts of the process, but we certainly are getting that way quickly.
During the Clinton campaigns and subsequent administration we became all too familiar with the term ‘politics of personal destruction.’ Maybe we were a little naïve at the time, but it seemed as though it became a common practice to tear apart the person rather than address the issues.
Now, perhaps because it was a successful strategy in the past, it seems difficult to get a clear answer from too many politicians. They seem almost anxious to inject the personal faults, whether based on fact or not, of their opponents prior to getting to the meat of any inquiry. There are exceptions and we are closely watching the few campaigns that have resisted this strategy in favor of being honest and up-front.
Without getting into details and furthering some of the confusion over what is fact and what is not fact, we have been sorely disappointed in the conduct of some of the candidates, both Republican and Democrat.
There seems to us to be a concerted effort to mix just enough fact into an accusation to give the accusation some credibility, and then add some rumors, innuendo, and at times outright falsehoods. We think this methodology reduces the credibility of the accuser at least as much as it does the accused.
Should the voters be made aware of flaws in a candidate’s moral character? Absolutely. But the flaw should be pointed out in an entirely truthful manner and not enhanced. The omission of part of the facts is often as bad as out-and-out lying.
We have often commented that indiscretions and criminal activity cannot be forgiven simply because a person chooses to make a public apology. We still hold to that principle, but at the same time, believe that a person should be given the opportunity to both apologize and explain his or her actions without being forced into an impossible response. (Sir, have you stopped beating your wife?)
We are optimistic that the voting public is beginning to acknowledge that politics can be a dirty game. We see more and more evidence that people are beginning to really analyze what is being told to them. We see profound examples of people becoming more informed voters, but we also see strong evidence that some politicians are purposely trying to keep the electorate uninformed by loading their campaign rhetoric with everything other than what the people really need to know.
For our part, we just want the truth. We want to feel like we really know the man or woman who is asking for our vote. We want to feel comfortable engaging in a conversation and not be constantly put in the position of guessing what the motives of every statement are.
Tolstoy once wrote, “…truth is communicated to men only by deeds of truth.” We are well advised to think about that statement.
