Politics Then and Now

The recent electoral race between the two current candidates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, had started on the claim that neither side would resort to mudslinging. As my professor has pointed out, this claim has obviously not held up for long. Both Obama and Romney have been spewing forth ads which insult the other candidate, point out their faults, or tell (bluntly) of how they’re better than their opposing candidate. It truly makes me laugh at how often this happens.

            I’ve seen countless ads as a kid which target candidates in a negative manner. The ads usually tend to fire at someone for not supporting gay marriage, or being against/for abortion (either of which can be made to look negative). However, I’ve not seen many ads similar to the current ones being circulated, claiming that Mitt Romney wouldn’t be a good fit for president due to the fact that he is a Mormon. I've never once judged a person by the color of their skin, belief in a god, or opinions on a matter. The way I judge people are their openness to ideas, and their attitude towards such ideas. It just doesn't seem right for someone to judge someone else based on their beliefs. At the same time, Romney does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

            Ever since he was elected, President Barack Obama was accused of not having an American citizenship. Romney has continued to fuel this argument throughout his campaign. He claims that Barack Hussein Obama was not born in America, and thus cannot be rightfully chosen as the president. The claim continues to spontaneously rise up in the news, but fades almost as quickly as it came. The last time Romney claimed that he had “surefire proof” that Obama wasn’t a US citizen was about a month ago. One week after the claim, everyone seemed to forget about it. Regardless, the mudslinging aspect of politics has always remained strong throughout history. A quick glance back in time shows that mudslinging has taken a different turn though.

            One of the very first ads which I remember seeing as a kid was entitled “Daisy”. The ad involves a young girl counting the number of pedals she pulls off of a daisy. When she hits a certain number, her voice fades away slowly, and is replaced by a serious sounding announcer-type voice counting down. When the voice counts to zero, an image of a missile being launched is shown, followed by a close-up on the girl’s eye. In her eye, you can see the image of a mushroom cloud explosion, followed by the screen flashing white. The message was played in the election of Lynden B Johnson. Many interpreted it as a means of instilling fear into the nation, attempting to persuade citizens to vote for JFK. However, the true message is clear: the ad is persuading individuals to vote against Barry Goldwater. The film almost directly displays that if Goldwater is elected to office, the country will be in a nuclear crisis. The ad aired during the crucial time of the Cold War, making matters worse. This “fear as a weapon” campaign advertisement is much different in comparison to the Romney/Obama election, but the message remains: “My opponent is less competent that I am”.
            Why it is that the media emphasizes this exchange of useless information is beyond my understanding. The news seems to circle around the concepts which, in the long run, will not benefit the nation as a whole. The facts that Obama isn't an American (when it has been proven that he is) and that Romney is a Mormon are utterly useless in relation to an electoral race between two supposedly "noble" candidates. Despite that, every time that I happen to glance at a television, or view an article in the news in relation to the campaign, there is at least a mention of a negative mudslinging-based insult from one party to the other. Sure, democrats and republicans have been at odds and ends for years. I thought, though, that our society had evolved to the point that we could hold an argument describing why we are best suited for a position, not why the opposing party is a piece of garbage. Moreover, I thought that the media wouldn't encourage this childlike behavior. Obviously, I was incorrect.

            The fact that advertising for one’s electoral campaign has devolved into mindless mudslinging is appalling. In this day and age, the country should be concerned about what the candidates will “bring to the table” so-to-speak, not what harm their opponent will cause. In the long run, nobody’s going to care if an African American is president, or if the leader of our country was a war hero in the past. People may think they care about that now, but it’s only because the media encourages them to think in that manner. Such thoughts are only perpetuated by the candidates’ ads, and it’s becoming ever-more evident that ads like these are only a means of covering up the insecurities of the candidates. To quote one of my personal favorite heroes: “It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.”