 |
| Jim Harbison |
In this age of constant bitter political mudslinging, casting any doubt or putting a negative moniker on your opponent is the rule of the day. As soon as someone learns that an individual is running for an elected office the volley of nasty bitter partisan attacks begin. They start with name calling using terms such as racist, environmental wacko, tea-bagger, conspiracy theorist, Christian zealot, or some other type of extremist. Now that we are beginning another campaign cycle at both the National and local levels we can anticipate that these slanderous attacks and character assassinations will begin with ever increasing volume and viciousness.
Seldom is a contemporary political race without negative campaigning. It is not usually done by, or at the direction of, the opposition candidate. Negative attacks are normally launched by someone or some group that has no direct links to the candidate or their organization. Their only apparent connection is that they are generally of the same political affiliation and oppose the other candidate’s platform. This is a deliberate opposition tactic to derail the candidate’s campaign strategy, cast doubt on their character or integrity, and avoid any meaningful discussions on the actual issues that separate them from their opponent. Many negative campaign activities occur without either candidate ever knowing who did it or who funded it.
Unfortunately, once a candidate is identified all protections against slander seem to disappear. They have instantly become a public figure and are no longer protected by the same laws that protect the private citizen. They are immediately forced to defend their reputation from these malicious allegations rather than focusing on the important political issues. It isn’t important or even relative that the slanderous and malicious remarks lack any creditability. This is truly unfortunate because it takes a lot of personal courage to run for any political office and many highly qualified and talented individuals refuse to have their reputations and character sullied and damaged by the irresponsible comments and accusations made by supporters of their political opposition.
Often the slanderous comments continue to haunt the candidate long after the race is over and the damage to their reputation is irreparable. These unwarranted and destructive personal attacks have changed behaviors. As an example, many men will no longer stop to assist a stranded female motorist because of the potential of a false accusation of some type of sexual misconduct. Falsely accusing political candidates of misconduct is similar to calling someone a racist, bigot, conspiracy theorist or extremist. You are assumed, by the public, to be guilty until you can prove yourself innocent and even when you do, many will still have doubts about your character and credibility.
Regrettably, our political process is not concerned with civility and mutual respect but is focused on winning at all costs. We all acknowledge that the quest for political power and control is all consuming. Power and greed will always make winning the most important objective and that some candidates will resort to any means to win. When will we demand more from our political system and the candidates? As voters we must demand that all candidates repudiate this type of character denigration and insist there will be consequences if it occurs. We cannot be so focused on winning that we willingly accept or condone malicious attacks that can become destructive to the candidate, the political process or our community. We need to keep this in mind as the political season descends upon us and try to keep focused on the issues and not be distracted by the malicious and slanderous comments made about the candidates.
Harbison: Politics of Denigration
From newmexicoindependent.com -Several states — but not New Mexico — have received warnings from the Department of Justice over their medical marijuana programs, leading them to reassess their programs, according to the Associated Press. The “ominous-sounding letters” have gone to the states in recent weeks. The letters — sent to Colorado and Washington, among other states — are perhaps a signal that the federal government is further abandoning its stated hands-off approach to medical marijuana in the states. More News New Mexico
Posts
