dirty tactics

May 1, 2008

sHesPeAks: By Fiscal/Sai/Mami Eldred Cole

“There’s no question they (dirty campaign tactics and tricks) are making a difference”

—Presidential historian Richard Shenkman

Political campaigning has enlivened every electoral process since time immemorial. Candidates and their supporters use a variety of approaches to describe how they are at variance from their opponents. Some campaigns bolster a candidate while others disparage the competition. Politicians routinely criticize opponents’ positions and records. Often, they also accuse each other of twisting the truth or even telling outright lies. This kind of negative campaigning is not new, in fact at present, it has become the mainstream.

There are campaign aspects of political mischief, like the fundamental elements of defamation and deception which are practiced in any election campaigns, which include efforts to turn voters against a candidate: by sheer vituperation; by the attribution of gross moral or mental defects; by appeals to religious or other biases and prejudice; by distorting the truth; by outright falsehood and other fabrications; and by spurious appeals to patriotism or the imputation of treason. Vilification, name-calling, mudslinging, personal abuse, contumely–whatever you call it–has been part of political life since office- seekers first competed for votes.

We can observe that those who employ these tactics of deception
and disaffection span a broad range, including rival candidates, campaign or other political organizations, citizens or organizations with a particular axe to grind, some elements of the news media, religious bodies, individuals bearing some grudge against a candidate, and people or groups that see the candidate as a threat to society.

It is also noteworthy that motivations for using these methods of disrupting the political dialog of election campaigns range from a merely tactical willingness to cheat a bit for a few more votes to a deeply sincere conviction–which may be either rational or quite demented–that the candidate under attack is profoundly dangerous to public safety or morals.

Commonly, when this kind of “dirty campaign tactics and tricks” is adopted by candidates during election time, it does not bother me at all. I don’t care whose dirt it is being exposed to the public because the people concerned are not related to me and they do not concern me. But for the past several days, I couldn’t help but react on the election campaign battles of the two warring gubernatorial candidates of Misamis Oriental, the incumbent and the challenger. I am not a staunch supporter of any one of them; in fact I am not a registered voter of the province.

But as a woman, it disturbs me to read about a “failed” marital relationship being exploited to vituperate a rival candidate and thus entice more votes without even considering the repercussion it would have, not only on the wife concerned but of the children as well. And they call themselves altruists? And because they consider themselves to be so, they are willing to put their lives on the line and run for public office because they are concerned for other people’s welfare? What a joke.

The black propaganda, if it can be referred as such, would not only destroy a family but the society’s concept of the inviolability of family. How low can you reduce yourself into just so you can get that most coveted position of power and wealth? By parading a traumatic experience as a campaign strategy? I don’t care if it is true or not, I don’t care if the incumbent has hundreds of harem tucked somewhere in this planet, what I care about is what it is doing on the children. And it does not also help when you show off alleged proof of the non-existing affair by flaunting a taped statement from the alleged paramour and making everything worst than it already is. It just muddles the real issues some more, issues that are supposed to be the subject of the campaign. Now, the question: is it germane to the issues hounding the province? What are these issues and what are the alternatives to be done?

Of course, the people behind it all would always aver that there is much more to negative campaigning than smear and slander. The advantages of incumbency in any modern, highly valued, elective office pose great obstacles to the challenger. But suffice it to say here that without attention-grabbing, cogent, memorable, negative campaigning; almost no challenger can hope to win unless the incumbent has just been found guilty of a heinous crime. Thus, it has to be done this way.

But please, don’t drag innocent children into a man’s ultimate game of piss-off. Stick to the issues to be resolved, buttress your winning the position not on someone else’s weakness but on the strength of your conviction to serve the people. (For comments and/or violent reactions e-mail me at coi_416@hotmail.com)

Written by admin · Filed Under Sai/Mami/Fiscal Eldred Cole