TO SLEAZE OR NOT TO SLEAZE

Cartoon: TheHarbinger

By Kitty Myers

This was originally published in the USA Today on 5 October 1992.

Their heading & sub-heading:

Believe it or not, mudslinging can be good for us

Dirty campaigning can -- sometimes unintentionally -- reveal information about the candidates that voters need to know.

`To sleaze or not to sleaze' is once again the question this election year. Each party slings it as well as any major league pitcher, and what one party labels the "truth" the other defines as "dirt." Then there's the media salivating for that first-slung syllable so they can decry "negative campaigning" because it's good for business.

Somewhere in the fray you'll find the voters bewildered by this symbiotic relationship between the politicians and the press, wondering if the candidates should be saying such things and if the media should be reporting it. As a voter "I say let the sleaze be slung!"

Do not assume I revel in sleaze per se because I don't. Yeah, I admit I can howl with glee when my candidate-of-choice rips off a good one about his opponent, and I wince and sputter when his opponent retaliates in "kind." And I admit that some of the sleaze definitely surpasses the parameters of customary hard-hitting politics to being totally unscrupulous and unwarranted. Yet, with all that considered, I still don't want even a whisper of censorship to seep into campaigning, so let the sleaze be slung if the candidates so choose.

However, as with all decisions we make in life, there are consequences to our actions, and our words have a nasty way of creeping back to haunt us. Quite often sleaze-slinging reveals as much about the slinger as it can about the sling-ee and sometimes much more. Some candidates entangle themselves irretrievably in a web of their own words. This was illustrated perfectly by Phil Donahue on his show nearly twenty years ago.

On that particular show censorship was being discussed in regards to political campaigning. Phil showed the audience a political commercial made by a candidate running for a local office in a southern state. It was an amateurish production showing the white male candidate speaking directly into the camera. He was unabashedly a white supremacist who spared nothing in depicting blacks as inferior to whites in every way. He was a fear monger who pandered to the lowest segment of society by spewing the usual garbage which some people prefer to believe.

The audience was aghast at the commercial, and they overwhelmingly agreed that such filth should be banned. Then Donahue cleverly pointed out that had the voters NOT seen that commercial, had it been banned as the audience would have preferred, then it was quite possible the voters might never have realized the candidate's true character and consequently have voted him into office. As it was, that particular commercial was aired, the voters were informed, and the candidate lost.

As tempting as it may be to gag some of the candidates, not hearing what they have to say could be worse. So first let me hear what they have to say, then I will decide for myself if I believe them, what I think of it, and how I will vote.

Candidates are a rugged lot; they can take it. And if they can't weather the campaigning process, would you still want them in office where the rigors are far more severe? Remember that it's better to learn about the candidates before we vote than after. So let the sleaze be slung if the candidates so choose. We may learn something in the process.

(C) 2004, Kitty Myers
All Rights Reserved