I understand the theory of negative campaigning. The idea is not to get votes for oneself, the concept is to depress turnout for the other candidate....to diminish the "other side's" enthusiasm to such an extent that they stay home and don't even bother voting at all.
While it may "work," it also has some extremely negative side effects:
> it diminishes the overall "standing" of all politicians.
> it is unhealthy for the general public.
Even so, there are still some politicians who earn our admiration; perhaps not overall, but at least for certain things they say or do.
We have so much acrimony sometimes in other threads, I ask that we set that aside here. Sort of like pickup hockey: while out on the ice, we might get some good body slams into each other and rough each other up, but once the game is over, we can all go into the tavern together and share some drinks and food in a congenial manner.
I ask that when we respond to each other, we refrain from "how can you possibly admire that jerk; he was despicable."
-- Well, perhaps that "jerk" did do some despicable things, he may also have done some admirable things. Few politicians are all good or all awful.
I ask that, when we post about those we do admire, we mention specific achievements or accomplishments that were admirable, or lay out the time period during which he was admirable; there is less potential for contention if we are talking about events and time periods that we can all agree did occur instead of talking about a personality or what he supposedly "represented."
I'll give an example a bit later of a politician who did many admirable things, and given my reputation I'm sure many will be surprised by who I mention first and why.....
Thanks, all!
While it may "work," it also has some extremely negative side effects:
> it diminishes the overall "standing" of all politicians.
-- At one time, there was a concept of "public service." Someone would do well in life, and want to "give back" to the community or to society at large
-- young idealistic people would be attracted to the idea of doing good for others
-- now, these same people are deterred from even seeking office in the first place, which means
-- we now have a disproportionate number of people seeking office who lack shame and are not constrained as much by social mores as the rest of us.
-- young idealistic people would be attracted to the idea of doing good for others
-- now, these same people are deterred from even seeking office in the first place, which means
-- we now have a disproportionate number of people seeking office who lack shame and are not constrained as much by social mores as the rest of us.
> it is unhealthy for the general public.
-- speaking personally, I find some ugly passions engaged in myself that I don't always handle as graciously as I would like.
-- there is something voyeuristic in human nature that enjoys a good train wreck...I wish it weren't so, yet there you have it
-- it leads to a greater sense of frustration that government is unresponsive to the people's needs
-- it legitimizes behavior that once was shameful
-- there is something voyeuristic in human nature that enjoys a good train wreck...I wish it weren't so, yet there you have it
-- it leads to a greater sense of frustration that government is unresponsive to the people's needs
-- it legitimizes behavior that once was shameful
Even so, there are still some politicians who earn our admiration; perhaps not overall, but at least for certain things they say or do.
We have so much acrimony sometimes in other threads, I ask that we set that aside here. Sort of like pickup hockey: while out on the ice, we might get some good body slams into each other and rough each other up, but once the game is over, we can all go into the tavern together and share some drinks and food in a congenial manner.
I ask that when we respond to each other, we refrain from "how can you possibly admire that jerk; he was despicable."
-- Well, perhaps that "jerk" did do some despicable things, he may also have done some admirable things. Few politicians are all good or all awful.
I ask that, when we post about those we do admire, we mention specific achievements or accomplishments that were admirable, or lay out the time period during which he was admirable; there is less potential for contention if we are talking about events and time periods that we can all agree did occur instead of talking about a personality or what he supposedly "represented."
I'll give an example a bit later of a politician who did many admirable things, and given my reputation I'm sure many will be surprised by who I mention first and why.....
Thanks, all!
Last edited:
