Is There A Way to Win An Election by Telling the Truth and Playing Fair?
- © Michele Toomey, PhD • October 13, 2000

I doubt it. It seems that fair is colorless in a campaign and meanness is colorful. Fair is bland and hostility is exciting. Issues in and of themselves are best received in an exciting and colorful presentation. Does that mean exuberant shouting? Sarcastic jibing? Aggressive taunting? It seems so. Character assassination is colorful and deadly. Distorted facts are frighteningly effective. The need to win is confounded with the need to destroy.

It would seem that exaggeration is everywhere. Whether it's exaggerated to elevate hopes or exaggerated to discredit opponents, it makes no difference. Truth is scarce and hard to find. Rather than tell us the uncertainty of what lies ahead, we are told with certainty what is only a mere possibility or a strong hope. Wishful thinking becomes an absolute guarantee. We all know it and yet, we all pretend. We get into a state of demanding, when all we can do is vote. So why does that create a climate of clouded thinking instead of careful deciding? The undecided voter is sought and interviewed and still remains undecided. It would seem for no other reason than the comfort indecision brings and the power it holds, if even for a brief moment. Even the voters find truth and fair play slipping through their fingers.

The differences are stated, the positions are declared, the candidates are known. What else is there to consider? A gaffe? Another repetitious explanation? One more promise? One last look at their facial expression to see if they can be trusted? A final review of their past offenses?

We say too much money is spent on campaigns? Well, then, let's look at ourselves and ask why it takes so many millions of dollars to convey the candidate's character and position to us in a convincing way? The amount of time and money spent on wooing us is as much our fault as theirs. Listen, read, ask questions and decide. It shouldn't take almost a year to figure out what we want, what we believe, and who we think will possibly deliver it for us. Perhaps we want those months of attention and somehow pretend that it makes up for the years of inattention. Perhaps it gives us a feeling of power. Well, there is a certain power. The power to vote. That is a real power. But after all this hype, millions of us won't vote.

So, when we ask ourselves why we have such ludicrous campaigns and such meaningless debates, let's look at ourselves for a change and not just at the candidates. They are caught up in fantasy, and image, but they are the product of our approach to campaign magic. If we didn't play, neither would they. Ralph Nader, for all his rhetoric, is no better. He relies on the same exaggeration and wishful thinking, only he packages it in anti-establishment propaganda that appeals to us in our need for what "we wish could be". But enough is enough. We have a lot at stake. Let's stand up and be counted to deal in the truth of what we want, what seems possible, and which candidate philosophically best matches our approach.