 |
 |
 |
|||
Legal
|
Campaign AdsThe Positive In Negative Campaign AdsMost of us claim to dislike negative campaign ads but what we consider negative or positive depends at whom the ad is directed. Democrats consider most Republican ads negative and, of course, most Republicans consider Democratic ads negative. The truth is somewhere in between. What is considered negative or positive is based on whether there is a good, logical answer to the ad. But we should be able to agree that negative campaign ads are any ads that attempt to attack the person instead of his or her record, service, or policy. Negative ads are those type that call names such as liar, traitor, un-American and other uncivil or rude comments. While it is fine to call a candidate a liar, there should be irrefutable evidence not hearsay or rumors. Mistakes in judgment are not lies unless you can prove the judgment was made using deliberately flawed data. Disagreement about events 30 years ago are not only natural but to be expected. Usually events that old and out of date are not important unless the candidates makes them central to his or her campaign. Governmental records can be used but how do we know they are accurate. Records are not usually first-hand but created by a third or fourth party from reports that may or may not be from eye witnesses. If we rely on eye witness accounts, we also know that it isn’t unusual for each eye witness to have slightly different version of the same event. What this usually means is that each account is correct in some ways and incorrect in others. Now the question is, "How to derive the truth?" Truth is based on our own preferences. We usually believe the side that we want to believe based on political beliefs or party affiliations. The only thing we can really count on is the character of the cast. If one side has demonstrated a characteristic of being very methodical and has more eye witnesses, that side will be more likely to be believed by those who are not partisan. If one side has a history of being flamboyant and of exaggerating or stretching the truth, that side will have a difficult time convincing unbiased people. What are we who are interested in determining the truth to do or to believe? This is where the candidate’s character must be closely reviewed. What that person’s character was years ago is not as critical as what his or her character is today. Character doesn’t usually change drastically over time but that doesn’t mean it can’t. Character usually changes in small steps that are initiated by events and personal experience. The primary reason character drastically changes is when the person makes a determined effort to change or experiences a life-altering event. Character appears to firm up in our young-adult years unless teenage events have already molded us. As an example, honesty does not suddenly appear in our twenties if we were habitually dishonest in our teens. Now, what does character have to do with negative campaign ads? How the targeted person reacts to these ads are indicative of his or her character. That person may chose to ignore the ads, strike back at the ad's sponsors, resort to name calling of the people involved, attack with a viciousness that seeks to destroy the people behind the ad, or calmly answer the ad’s charges one by one. People who chose to answer negative ads in kind may not be the best person for the office. An attempt to smear the people responsible for the ad instead of proving the ad wrong are usually more interested in themselves than in the office. Small, self-important egos strike with a deadliness that seeks to demolish his or her opponents rather than overcome the negative aspects of the ad. Why is it important how a candidate reacts to a personal, negative ad? Because that person’s reaction tells us how he or she is likely to react to a personal or national crisis once in office. That is why past events are not as important as current events in determining a candidate’s character. Character is the only true way to judge a candidate. No one knows what will happen once that person is in office. We the electorate must try to ensure we elect someone who has the character to withstand unpredictable events, react calmly and sanely to friends and foes alike. The character of a person willing to attack his or her opponent with little evidence, uses lies to cover mistakes, or tries to destroy the person rather than point to the record is unfit for command. The higher the office the more he or she is unfit for that office. It has been proven that the Office of President can withstand an indecisive person but the more serious the world situation the more we need steadfastness of character. If that person cannot act without the approval of our allies, that person automatically places the welfare of this nation at risk. If he or she requires consensus before acting, he or she is a follower not a leader. Character matters.
Author: Don Miller
|
2004 Articles |
|||