If you don't like the message, attack the messenger
Here in Florida we're coming to the Primaries for many offices. We've had the most expensive and possibly the dirtiest election campaigns that I can remember. Yet we have almost no idea of what the issues are or how the candidates stand on them. Most of the candidates have simply told us how evil their opponent is.
Other things being equal that is definitely an issue. But other issues concern voters as well. I always thought that Jimmy Carter was a good man, personally more ethical and more moral than Richard Nixon. But I also thought that Richard Nixon served the country more effectively as President.
Looking back, I think that parties shied away from candidates with a luridly dishonest or immoral past, And while their party committed large sums to support their candidates, the individual candidate was chosen by the voters in the primaries. I don't know how much Harry Truman spent to be elected, but I doubt if he could afford to spend several million dollars.
The idea that someone could buy the nomination was abhorrent to the American system, particularly if he bought it with "dirty money", especially if the "dirty money" was his own. Today we find this accusation made by and about candidates of both parties who still garner public support, even when they offer no program. Voters choose on negative grounds, they are "against" one candidate rather than "for" the other. Yet we all "know" ( because the media and the pundits tell us) that large donations from special interests (big business and unions) are really bribes for future favors.
Even the Tea Party candidates seem to run "against" the establishment rather than "for" a positive program. Wouldn't you love to meet a candidate who would stand "FOR" something?
No comments:
Post a Comment