It’s election season, and I hate it. It seems to go on forever, starting well before any primary and stretching through election day. The span can be six months or more, a full 25% of the time between congressional election cycles. I know of candidates who devote over a year in their search for office. I wish we could have limitations of the campaign period to three or six weeks as is done elsewhere.
The associated bombardment is many faceted.
I don’t mind yard signs, although I worry about neighborhood harmony. But they’re around because the property owner takes an interest in the elective process, and that’s something that should be fostered. Also, it’s a positive statement. I am for this candidate and I hope you will be too. Also, I admit to using them to help me decide how to vote. If I’m unsure about a particular office and I see a sign for one of the candidates on the lawn of someone whose political views I detest, I know to vote for the opponent.
What I find reprehensible is the stealing, defacing, or destruction of these signs by small people of little imagination from any political philosophy. There’s a tendency to be angry when action occurs against candidates you prefer, and delight when it goes the other way. Wrong thinking! All of us should speak against the practice which serves only to magnify the lack of respect rampant in our country these days.
Let me plead, though, to take down the signs on the evening of the election. Some leave the winners in order to stick it to the ones who voted otherwise, while some leave the losers to tell the world a stupid mistake has occurred. How can either action accomplish any good?
While signs are relatively benign, the rest of the bombardment, originated by candidates and those who favor them, is hard to take, no matter the source. Mailers and TV ads are galling, to say the least. I don’t watch much television, so I don’t see many of the latter. When I do, I realize why I don’t watch, especially during election time. I can turn off the TV, but I can’t turn off the mail.
The words that come to mind as I think of these attempts to influence are hypocrisy, nasty and lie, not traits I’d like to see in my elected representatives. While yard signs are a positive statement for a candidate, these ads are too often a negative statement against a candidate.
I do think there are honorable folk running for office. But even from them I learn little from ads. Often they pose with their spouse and the requisite 2.5 children, all looking so healthy and happy. I hope they are, but I can’t help wondering about family obligations when running for office is so time consuming and the desire to win all encompassing.
These ads at their most positive outline all the wonderful ideas that will be implemented if the candidate wins and all the volunteer organizations they have devoted their lives to. Lacking is how they will accomplish their goals in an environment unwilling to pay or even cooperate, or what they actually accomplished in the volunteer work while still being a wonderful parent to the 2.5 children.
The ads at their worst do nothing but attack the opponent with short bites that all too often attempt to assign to the accused the failings of the accuser. More often than not they flunk the fact check test. They are nothing more than additional poison for the atmosphere in which we live.
I think candidates have spoken negatively of their opponents for centuries, but with all the technology today the spread and vitriol has magnified beyond reason.
Why is this such a common trend? Because it works! Polls change after a barrage of attack ads paid for with the millions individuals and companies are willing to sink in order to elect a puppet loyal to them. And it’s our fault. Because we allow ourselves to be influenced by non-facts. Because we aren’t willing to dig into the merits of a candidate and demand he or she speak the truth. Because we live in a fantasy world.
Much has been written about good candidates not being willing to run. Lack of money is a major reason. I also think good people don’t want to subject themselves to the nastiness that will be aimed at them from the opposition, or feel they have to respond in kind.
In spite of the difficulties, some do enter the fray in the hopes of making a difference. I worry that the need to solicit money, make unsavory deals, and sling invectives will change them to being like all the others.
The associated bombardment is many faceted.
I don’t mind yard signs, although I worry about neighborhood harmony. But they’re around because the property owner takes an interest in the elective process, and that’s something that should be fostered. Also, it’s a positive statement. I am for this candidate and I hope you will be too. Also, I admit to using them to help me decide how to vote. If I’m unsure about a particular office and I see a sign for one of the candidates on the lawn of someone whose political views I detest, I know to vote for the opponent.
What I find reprehensible is the stealing, defacing, or destruction of these signs by small people of little imagination from any political philosophy. There’s a tendency to be angry when action occurs against candidates you prefer, and delight when it goes the other way. Wrong thinking! All of us should speak against the practice which serves only to magnify the lack of respect rampant in our country these days.
Let me plead, though, to take down the signs on the evening of the election. Some leave the winners in order to stick it to the ones who voted otherwise, while some leave the losers to tell the world a stupid mistake has occurred. How can either action accomplish any good?
While signs are relatively benign, the rest of the bombardment, originated by candidates and those who favor them, is hard to take, no matter the source. Mailers and TV ads are galling, to say the least. I don’t watch much television, so I don’t see many of the latter. When I do, I realize why I don’t watch, especially during election time. I can turn off the TV, but I can’t turn off the mail.
The words that come to mind as I think of these attempts to influence are hypocrisy, nasty and lie, not traits I’d like to see in my elected representatives. While yard signs are a positive statement for a candidate, these ads are too often a negative statement against a candidate.
I do think there are honorable folk running for office. But even from them I learn little from ads. Often they pose with their spouse and the requisite 2.5 children, all looking so healthy and happy. I hope they are, but I can’t help wondering about family obligations when running for office is so time consuming and the desire to win all encompassing.
These ads at their most positive outline all the wonderful ideas that will be implemented if the candidate wins and all the volunteer organizations they have devoted their lives to. Lacking is how they will accomplish their goals in an environment unwilling to pay or even cooperate, or what they actually accomplished in the volunteer work while still being a wonderful parent to the 2.5 children.
The ads at their worst do nothing but attack the opponent with short bites that all too often attempt to assign to the accused the failings of the accuser. More often than not they flunk the fact check test. They are nothing more than additional poison for the atmosphere in which we live.
I think candidates have spoken negatively of their opponents for centuries, but with all the technology today the spread and vitriol has magnified beyond reason.
Why is this such a common trend? Because it works! Polls change after a barrage of attack ads paid for with the millions individuals and companies are willing to sink in order to elect a puppet loyal to them. And it’s our fault. Because we allow ourselves to be influenced by non-facts. Because we aren’t willing to dig into the merits of a candidate and demand he or she speak the truth. Because we live in a fantasy world.
Much has been written about good candidates not being willing to run. Lack of money is a major reason. I also think good people don’t want to subject themselves to the nastiness that will be aimed at them from the opposition, or feel they have to respond in kind.
In spite of the difficulties, some do enter the fray in the hopes of making a difference. I worry that the need to solicit money, make unsavory deals, and sling invectives will change them to being like all the others.
RSS Feed