| |
The Unchanged World of Politics
Posted
2-28-2000
One issue that comes up so often in the world politics and sometimes affects
me personally, is how does a candidate or officeholder deal with and respond
to criticism. The issue is really nothing new, and if you ever look at old
campaign advertisements, negative commentary is as old as our political
system. We often tend to think that somehow things have become more brutal
in modern times but I'm not sure about that. I don't know if that is the
case or perhaps, today with mass communications, people are more acutely
aware of the level of vitriol.
As a candidate and
officeholder, I know that there are times I have been, and will be, exposed
to negative comments. Even when they are personal, and not directed toward a
policy decision, they don't particularly hurt my feelings. Maybe being in
this business has desensitized me, but I came to the realization early on
that not everyone was going to like me. My family takes the criticism much
harder than I do.
What I do believe is
necessary though, is a response to such attacks. I watched during the 1980s
when the Republican Party, under the direction of strategists like the late
Lee Atwater, made mince meat of Democrats who simply didn't play the game.
It started with one of the most virtuous people in public life, Jimmy
Carter. He was dissected in the 1980 Presidential Election and never really
fought back. It happened again in 1984 with Walter Mondale and then in 1988
with Michael Dukakis. They were all noble men, and in each case,
intellectually superior to their opponents. But they lost! When the
Republicans started blasting away with their version of issues and the
character of each man, they were able to develop what became the accepted
viewpoint.
The success of that style of
shaping public opinion carried through to the 1990s. It had a powerful
impact in the Republicans getting people to believe Democrats in Congress
only wanted to "tax and spend." It certainly allowed them to gain control of
Congress in 1994. Only when they had to govern did people begin to realize
there was a need for a more substantive message than just "cutting taxes."
Now in national opinion polls, cutting taxes is nowhere near the importance
of affordable healthcare, protecting Social Security, or improving
education. It took people experiencing the governance of the Republican
Congress to change their view, it didn't happen when they only heard one
message over and over again.
Rightly or wrongly, politics
is a tough business. I believe if someone is going to try to advance
criticism, I must respond. A lack of response can cause the public to
believe the criticism is valid. Misinformation if it is unchallenged,
becomes the truth. In this business, the adage of "turning the other cheek"
will get you slapped a second time.
Governing is different. When
governing, there is a need for compassion and understanding. The competitive
nature of politics makes it different than governing for the collective good
of everyone. While I want to participate in the political process fairly and
with civility, if I'm attacked, I'm responding. If it is a challenge to a
policy decision, I'll try to explain my policy viewpoint. But if it is a
personal attack, then I'll respond accordingly.
I know there are groups that
want to change the nature of politics and make it more like the National
Forensic League. That is an overwhelming challenge. The competitive nature
of our culture is reflected in our political system. Just as competition
fuels our economic system, it fuels our political system also. I'm not sure
what level of competitiveness breeds positive results, but it is inherit in
our American culture. I think as we move into the 21st century, the overt
forms of politics may change, but its true nature is as unchanged as Thomas
Jefferson and John Adams trading personal insults two centuries ago. |
