Yet another campaign season has passed and there are few who would argue that its character was less than vicious. And while the highly competitive nature of Georgia’s Senate and gubernatorial races only exacerbated the belligerent tone of the election, the recent races further serve as a scathing indictment of what is wrong with political campaigning in modern America.
Put simply, today’s campaigns seem to have devolved into collective efforts to “sling mud” and win at any cost. With this, the increasing polarization and factional nature of today’s political landscape has intensified an environment of negativity that is altogether unbecoming of a democratic system.
To be fair, it is not as if such divisive tactics have not been used since the onset of our nation’s governmental history—indeed, some of the first elections in the United States were notoriously derogatory and venomous. However, the way that today’s campaigns have evolved not only demonstrates how a nation’s democratic foundation can be undermined by partisan interests, but also how a political system can become unbalanced by the acceptance of tactics inherently disadvantageous the American people.
Specifically, the smear campaigns that have come to dominate the airwaves during election seasons indicate underlying ethical issues in the way we as a nation approach political affairs, especially concerning issues of fair and free speech. It should further be noted that a staggering amount of the negative ads employed today are created by super-pacs, interest groups whose donations and ads are less subject to regulation and scrutiny than are those of individuals seeking to participate in the political process. Frankly, the consequences of allowing wealthy corporations and interest groups to enable and dominate how American campaigns are run will include a cynical public and a non-inclusive political atmosphere.
In essence, such interest/monetary-specific and spiteful tactics serve to increase the overall price of running a campaign, which further forces candidates to rely on the funds of super-pacs. From here, it is not irrational to assume that successful candidates will maintain close, if not indebted, bonds to the corporation/group in question and will be tempted to protect their interests over the interests of his or her constituency. And if it truly is influence that super-pacs are buying, it makes sense that the character of their advertisements and endorsements would be predisposed to being venomous in their approach and tone.
Furthermore, if one considers the cumulative effect of both the political negativity and the consequential pandering of politicians to more socioeconomically advantaged interests (who have the time and funds to be able to effectively organize and influence law-makers) the foreseeable future of the American political scene will be one of civic disillusionment and misguided polarization that will benefit wealthy and incumbents at the expense of true democratic realization.
This, in short, is irresponsible. Not only will such methods/approaches seemingly confirm to the American people the corrupt tendencies of politicians and the government as a whole, but they will also have a detrimental impact on the perceived investment and efficacy felt by individual voters. Moreover, as hateful, nit-picky character attacks become the norm, many potential candidates will also be dissuaded from running for office, despite how competent they may be, as they do not wish to put their families through such an ordeal. And despite the fact that the effectiveness of negative/attack ads in persuading voters to vote for a particular candidate have proved inconclusive, the logical outcome of a disenchanted electorate is diminished participation—a concept that should be all but intolerable in a democratic nation.
In conclusion, the American people deserve better from their political system and should harness their collective power to demand reforms and investigate the origins of the campaign ads they see.
