100% Positive

Comparative (some call it “negative”) campaigning has been with us since the early days of our Republic, even some of our Founders and their associates practiced it.  The first truly contested presidential elections under our Constitution – in 1796 and 1800 – were rife with vitriolic accusations and counter-accusations.  Rough and tumble politicking of the highest order. The Willie Horton ad, relatively speaking, was subtle and nuanced compared to some of the allegations that were printed in the newspapers of that era.   

So if you are opposed to comparative campaign tactics, you must be against the Founders and therefore, hate America. Commie swine!

Do I even need to write, “See what I did there?”

My point with this inelegant example is to recognize that pointing out the shortcomings of one’s political opponent(s) is generally well within the bounds of fair play in our democracy and that witless hand-wringing while bemoaning the so-called coarseness of modern elections is to miss the mark completely.

Don’t get it twisted, there were folks on both sides of the aisle, in Maryland, that engaged in comparative campaigning in 2014.  Sometimes it took the form of paid media, in other cases, attacks generated earned media.  In some communities, whisper campaigns via word-of-mouth or social media conveyed messages…information that wasn’t always grounded in that which the boffins call “facts.”  Sometimes attacks were cloaked as defensive statements.

So before one starts saying, “Golly gee, I reckon ‘negative’ campaigning doesn’t work.” Think again. You might not like it, and it might not appeal to “our better angels” but it serves a purpose…and it is often effective.  A back-and-forth on voting records and statements helps facilitate a free exchange of ideas and allows for the painting of more detailed portraits of those seeking public office.  Those on the receiving end may not appreciate the “warts and all” image of themselves, but it offers an electorate another way of thinking about someone who may represent them. 

Of course serious money is spent by campaigns in an effort to showcase/position their candidate in the most favorable light possible, and they will get miffed because comparative communications efforts require the expenditure of additional time and resources, both of which are precious, to ensure that the voters are hearing “our” story about our candidate as opposed to “their” narrative about our candidate.

Academic arguments can discuss the impact of such campaigns on political efficacy and voter turnout.  That subject will not be addressed here today. 

My point is that those on high horses tend to dismount quickly when it becomes advantageous for them/their political party to engage in such practices. So the “holier-than-thou” attitude gets very tiring, very fast…and often precedes behavior that could best be described as hypocritical. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

You’ll Never Find…Anarchy, State and Utopia

It is Saturday, at the noon hour.  I was supposed to be writing this blog post from a hotel room in lovely downtown Salisbury, Maryland….a mere 45-minutes from the gentle salt water breezes that, at this very moment, are failing to dissipate the heavy fog enveloping Ocean City.

Alas, a confederacy of circumstances is keeping me holed up at the Home Office, well to the west of the Bay Bridge.

I have been thinking about Rawls lately, not the singer (Lou) but the political philosopher (John).  A true heavy-hitter in the field, his thoughts on justice and governance were, and continue to be, enormously influential.  Some of his key constructs, such as the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” require a bit of explanation:

“The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ). It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice.

The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences.

The parties in the original position are presented with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests.

Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are the two principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good. The second principle provides fair equality of educational and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and prerogatives of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons.” [Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

So what does this mean? In simple terms, this thought exercise should remove one from their personal notions of self-interest.  If you didn’t know who you might be, or where you might end up in a society, you are less likely to design a society whereby the rights of the have-nots or of particular minorities receive a lesser degree of protection compared to the haves or of any particular majority.  It is intended to promote a rational discussion of fairness, and how such principles could be used to inform and undergird a fair system of government.

It is also an excellent and practical means for detecting hypocrisy (or other defects) among political candidates.  All you need to do is ask yourself, or them directly:

“Would you hold the same position if [Population X] constituted a majority in the United States?”  Or, even more to the point, “Would you espouse such beliefs if you, yourself had Characteristic Y and not Z?”

His ideas can be employed to help provide another way of viewing those who seek public office, and of evaluating the platforms for which they advocate.  This approach offers another way of cutting through the rhetorical mists, to go deeper than a surface examination of the Issue Stances to ascertain the true beliefs (or lack thereof) of a political candidate.

If nothing else, asking such questions might enliven some candidate forums.  Lord knows they can be dreary affairs.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.