The politics of running against rather than for

Lou Marzeles
Editor and Publisher

     There have been a lot of political campaigns over the years between candidates who are often pretty fuzzy on the issues but very clear on their stands against each other. Often that approach is just a default setting on someone’s mindset; they just don’t know how to do anything else. Sometimes it’s a very deliberate strategy, and, distressingly, it can work.
     Why is it distressing? Suppose you wanted to buy a car, and your salesman kept saying, “Well, here are the cars you don’t want: you don’t want those cars on that lot across the street because the guys there just don’t run the place the way it should be run. I’ve heard their books are crooked, and like they say, where there’s smoke there’s fire.”
     “So why should I buy your cars?”
     “Well, like I said, because you don’t want to buy theirs.”
     “Yes, but what about your cars? Are they good?”
     “Well, you just really don’t want to buy theirs.”
     After this approach, you could end up buying a motorcycle instead. That’ll show them.
     There’s some of that approach in local campaigns these days—some candidates can preach about the wrongdoings of their opponents but sometimes don’t have a whole lot to say about what they actually have to offer. You aren’t surprised when candidates don’t speak well of other candidates; that’s hardly a news flash. If they liked them all that much, they wouldn’t be running against them. But one’s ability to speak ill of another shouldn’t be much of an incentive to voters. It’s a lot more convincing to prove—not tell, but prove—why you’re the best candidate for a particular office.
     The politics of disparagement has been around for a long time. And it can work. A candidate can get a job that way. But do we really want someone in office whose only way to win is by firing shots at another candidate? Would you hire someone to work for you based on how they disparage another candidate for the job?