In Praise of Mudslinging
By Miguel Guanipa (04/23/08)
Still seething from having been deprived of an executive appointment to the office of Postmaster General, revolutionary icon and local agitator Thomas Paine editorialized that the world would have trouble deciding “...Whether [President George Washington] had abandoned good principles...or whether [he] ever had any”; little did Payne know then that he was somewhat of a precursor to the now standard fare approach to American politics known as mudslinging.
It stands to reason that this legacy from our founders has been greatly augmented in this our internet age, as it is very well suited for today’s open ended format, which allows for the free, uninterrupted exchange of ideas, humor, or just plain vitriolic banter from the venting national - and global - punditry, including any who would seek to expound, educate, offend, and ultimately neutralize opponents from respective political parties -- or as has been the case more recently, feuding potential nominees from within the same fold.
Unfortunately, to the great disservice of healthy debate, today’s politically correct milieu has wrought a new breed of gun-shy politicians, who have tried to brand any criticism of their opponents as an illegitimate form of public discourse.
A moratorium on mudslinging was recently put in effect by Barack Obama himself, through a disingenuous pledge that his would be a mudslinging-free campaign. But the latter was ignored by both contenders in the democratic primaries, and exposed as simply a preemptive attempt to shame the opposition from dredging up any potentially embarrassing tidbits from Obama’s past. The rest is now history.
As Obama well knows, the chief purpose of mudslinging is to raise suspicions about the moral backbone of one’s opponent. And despite the personal philosophy of ethics compartmentalization that seemed to rule the day during the celebrated Clinton years, savvy politicians are keenly aware of the benefits linked to evoking - and preserving - a favorable impression of our inner character through one’s public persona; for when all is said and done, it is the public trust that they must earn in order to secure the most votes.
It is also the hope of even the most inveterate partisan voter that the person to whom he is yielding authority has the required strength of character to wield it properly. Thus mudslinging and legitimate criticism, though often seen as dissimilar approaches to political dialogue, are basically two sides of the same coin, and often yield the same desired result: more transparency.
It is not unfair for example, to inquire about a presidential candidate’s readiness to take on the job for which he or she is vying, or his personal relationships with questionable characters; or to question another candidate’s motives for gratuitously embellishing a story.
The accused should make efforts to atone for such lapses in judgment. At a minimum they should explain why the alleged affiliations no longer influence their judgment, or how it came about that their telling of a certain event has the appearance of having been deliberately reconfigured for purposes of self-aggrandizement.
And not all criticism can be classified as mudslinging, nor is mudslinging always to be dismissed as unfair criticism. Some mudslinging has been unfairly characterized as the latter when it is in fact merely a call to accountability.
As it is, politicians have always been loath to engage in any type of humility-laden self-introspection, since their central concern is to project moral strength from all angles. But even good old fashioned mudslinging is sometimes a fun way of exposing the weaknesses of your opponent, not to mention galvanizing your own base
Someone must find the courage to carry on this cherished American political tradition. Unfortunately the main stream media, which is not known as a bastion of objectivity, has already adopted the role of arbitrator in this field. And few and far between are the alternative media outlets that do not let their partisanship get in the way of objective reporting, as the majority are primarily geared toward one purpose only: to search and destroy the opposition.
Yet a balance must be struck. Mean-spirited mudslinging done for the only purpose of slandering or destroying an opponent rather than engendering healthy debate invariably tends to get old quickly.
And there’s no guarantee that simply dismissing these inquires as partisan attacks will reflect favorably on those against whom such charges are leveled. There is however a grace period for those who are regularly exempt from having to answer such meddlesome queries by virtue of the fact that they happen to be Democrats, or those who are frequently given a free pass by the main stream media; but I repeat myself.
Hopefully mudslinging will endure, because presently we are saturated with endearing images from the politician’s own quarters, since their goal is, understandably, to always give the best impression.
Only a healthy dose of criticism, mixed in with a bit of good old fashioned mudslinging – also sometimes referred to as swiftboating in some circles - can provide a balance and an opportunity to see a side of the candidate he or she does not want to expose. And it is only fair that the accused party be given ample opportunity to respond to the allegations, just so that there are no surprises.
If you don’t believe me, just ask John Kerry.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
