Forwarding the Conversation

Barack Obama “Honor” Ad

John McCain “Education” Ad

 
Barack Obama and John McCain approve of their respective ads and their campaigns have spent money to produce and air them in keys states. To me, these ads demonstrate what has become the motto of this campaign season “do whatever it takes.” In Obama’s ad he uses journalistic publications to refute unfair claims made by the McCain campaign. The paradox here is that Barack Obama is using a negative campaign ad to combat a flury of negative campaign ads from John McCain’s campaign. McCain’s negative ad misrepresents an Obama policy position. Both of these ads take this election cycle to a new low as Kven Karl Rove observes in the video below.

In sitting down to write this I feel like every other political observer who says “stop the negative attack ads” because they are eating away at the essential fibers of our democracy. The bottom-line is that, as someone who has worked a number of campaigns, negative campaigning is effective in doing two things 1) solidifying a base 2) suppressing voter turnout. Both of these candidates are coming out swinging hoping to get their base in line, keep the other party’s people at home, and convince a few key swing voters to vote for them.

At the end of the day the negative tone of the campaign undermines the core messages of both candidates. John McCain is running as a maverick who will reach across party-lines to “shake up Washington.” Barack Obama is running a a post-partisan figure who doesn’t see people in terms of Democrat and Republican he sees people as Americans (also note that John McCain has also used this line). What is alarming to me in all of this is that it seems that, particularly the John McCain campaign, neither candidate cares that much about running a campaign with a focus on governing.

When I set out to complete a project I take a look at the desired outcomes. I do that by imagining what it will be like to have fulfilled all of my commitments. From there I work backwards to the present, outlining along the way each step that must be completed. The way that I see it, presidential campaigns should also function this way. Candidate should in a”place of success” having fulfilled all of their commitments at eight years as President and work backwards from there. My belief is that if campaigns were planned this way that they would not take on the vitriolic tenor that is currently the norm in presidential elections. Again, to restate my assertion, if campaigns worked backwards from what the candidate wanted to accomplish while in offce then campaigns would look 100% different. I believe that the negative tone of campaigns further reinforces partisan ideologies and identifications, which in turn leads people to feel alienated from one another when they put on their political hat. This idea is similar to what happens when a happy, loving, family sits down for a large family dinner and starts talking about politics. I’ve heard countless stories from friends about family dinners that have gone awry because of disagreements about politics. My opinion is that the reason for this phenomenon is the way in which we run our campaigns. The Democratic and Republican parties air ads that demonize the other side both during election seasons and during off-years. Organizations like MoveOn and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth  have made people cynical about the process and have played off of emotions as opposed to policy. We use wedge issues like abortion, immigration, and gay marriage to play people against each other. Campaigns take on a “do whatever it takes” strategy and when they get elected they have to govern.

The problem with running campaigns this way is that it creates a more polarized electorate. Elected representatives are responsible to those who elect them and if the electorate is more polarized then it means that the representative will have to appeal to that base in order to get re-elected. This turns into a cycle of pandering and negativity that becomes difficult to break. This campaign season could have been the time where we asked people to put country over party. This could have been an election about issues, about qualifications, about who will do a better job governing, NOT a slug fest over who said what, when, and how.  Because of the tone the two presidential campaigns we have lost an opportunity to create a stronger, more vibrant, collaborative democracy. We will all hear over the coming 49 days that we need to put country before party and we will also hear a lot of hateful and negative accusations being thrown across both sides of the aisle. One thing though is clear to me: slogans and promises of America first are hollow because you need to back up your words with actions. Neither candidate is doing what it takes to truly put country overy party. 

Maybe if the two candidates had truly laid out a comprehensive strategy for governing both would have seen the impact that their campaigns can have on the political system. While we don’t know who will be sworn in on January, 20 2009 we do know that the political climate will not change much from the last eight years.

The next video is the full interview with Karl Rove. It really drives the point home.