Has all the mud been slung? Now that election day is here, are we finally free of negative campaigning? Can I stop ducking and covering now?
Why do candidates "go negative," anyway? Poll after poll after poll indicates that the public hates it, is turned off by it, and generally has no use for it. However, return after return after return indicates that "going negative" works. Which is the real reason it continues to plague us.
I suppose this is a variation on the old product marketing and advertising notion that no one cares whether you remember a product positively or negatively, just that you do in fact remember it. "The Selling Of America" continues apace. Actually, it's a tough situation. The person or party on the receiving end of the first mud slung must respond in kind if s/he does not want to be called a wimp . . . or a loser . . . or worse. You doubt this? Exhibit # 1 in support of my contention: Michael Dukakis's ill-fated presidential run.
Still, negative campaign ads are a strong argument against a totally unregulated free market. Would that we could rein in the excesses of the marketplace (in all areas, not just politics--note as an aside that commercial speech has never been afforded the total protection given to political speech. You can't just go yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, unless it's true, that is.) Too many people, however, fail to recognize the uniqueness of our First Amendment. Political speech, even crass and false political speech, is absolutely protected and sacrosanct. I see no end, ever, to negative political advertising. The ultimate moral of the story provides another lesson in being a member of a truly free society, however: freedom requires self-restraint. Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. We could probably stop most negative advertising if we could convince people not to be the first one to sling mud. OK, OK. How many "r"s are there in "fat chance"?
A more important question: did you vote yet? I did. And I was amazed. I got to my polling place at about 10:30 a.m. and was the 107th voter. That means that 106 people had already voted in the 2 1/2 hours my polling station had been open. I think the pundits who predicted lower than usual (even for off-year elections) turn-outs were wrong. I am glad to see it.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom anyone who complains about the system yet who does not participate in it. One of my uncles is in this crowd. He is politically astute and aware, but he hasn't even registered. He sees no point it voting. [OK, maybe he's not as astute as I said. Better yet, he is astute about the substance of the issues, even if not so much about the process.--Ed.] I think he's nuts. We both live in a part of the country that is much farther to the right than we tend to be. We both tend to lose on more issues than we tend to win.
Nonetheless, I maintain that even in a losing effort, our voices matter. If we present enough numbers, we cannot just be ignored or blown off. Our opinions must be considered when the majority implements its plans. Besides, participation is a good civic exercise, in and of itself. I shudder to consider what my uncle is teaching his son and daughter about what is important about being an American, and how important it is to be heard, even when not winning. Despite what Vince Lombardi said, winning not only isn't everything--is it not even the only thing. Somebody out there help me--what's the quote carved into the outer facade of Memorial Stadium on the University of Nebraska main campus in Lincoln? "Not in the victory but in the participation, not in the glory but the effort, . . ." I know I don't have it memorized correctly. My spotty memory, however, does not make the point less valid: participation matters for its own sake. It reinforces both a sense of community and respect for diversity (of opinion, one hopes), qualities vital to the success and even survival of any civilization.
OK, all you wags out there. I know you are saying there is no sign of civilization or even of intelligent life here. Heck, I've said it myself, only partially in jest. But the right to complain about, to poke fun at, to castigate the system should be limited to those with a stake IN that system. That means to those who participate. Yes, not participating is a form of participation . . . but it's like silence. It's inherently ambiguous. Did you not vote because you agree with how everything is going now? Did you not participate because you just don't care? Did you not participate because you are ignorant of the issues? Did you not participate because you feel it's useless?
If the last, why are you living in America? America is not just a place--it's an idea--and to fail to help express the idea (by participating in voting) is to KILL the idea.
"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you . . ."
No comments:
Post a Comment