Published: July 08, 2008 10:16 am            

CURRAN: Being mean for the end; Only more voter participation can help eliminate candidates going negative

OK, I give. Content it is.

Last week’s column about so-called robo calls prompted several times more responses than is usual, and a common thrust was that there should’ve been way more said on the content of the candidates’ messages.

To recap: A case is currently before the Indiana Supreme Court concerning whether Indiana’s ban on unsolicited, automated calls applies to political messages. The groups being sued under the law are from out-of-state and made calls on the behalves of our 9th District Congressional candidates/incumbents/challengers, whatever they are this year, Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel.

Though the focus of the last column was the specific case of political robo calls and whether someone has a right to make them, the responses were mostly about the general tone of the campaigns during the past several elections, the inability to enjoy the local evening television news due to the constant, negative ads by Hill, Sodrel and their colleagues Anne Northup and her latest opponent, and that, yes, we rightly hold children to a higher standard of civility.

Though, like most, I tried my best to block out the 2006 ads after the 50th or so time, I don’t need to go back and fact-check to recall the “Millionaire Mike” cartoon, and the ads darkly warning of Hill’s status of being a liberal and “going Washington.” These campaigns and their surrogates, the type of groups that formed to get around campaign-finance laws and that rudely call our homes among other tactics, worked hard to hone a particular message to voters, and at the end of the day, this is what really sinks in. What substance!

And do we remember the pledge last time? Both candidates pledged, to a minister, to refrain from negative campaigning. Best I can tell, Sodrel broke that pledge first, but that really depends on your definition of negative campaigning, which, fairly, is a defense worthy of a president. Impressive for just a congressman.

Hill called Sodrel on breaking the pledge, then started the ugly stuff himself, arguing he had no choice because, basically, Sodrel started it, a defense worthy of an 8-year-old.

One of the seemingly more substantial, but really just as misleading, tactics we are treated to in congressional races is the practice of supposedly holding an opponent accountable for their record.

This is presented to us in factual-sounding sound bites of “fill-in-the-blank voted against seniors” or given to us from those outside groups as if they’re really concerned about the issue, independent of politics. They just want us citizens to do our duty and call the incumbent and ask why they voted to deny Grandma her pills.

The various bills those in Congress vote on often contain totally unrelated amendments, some of which may be scary. In theory, a bill could include a provision that does something great for the troops, but also include a provision that reinstitutes the draft. Think about how anyone’s vote for or against could look in a later ad.

There may also be competing versions of a bill. Therefore, while the candidate voted against one version, maybe the most expensive, least generous or most dangerous, he may well have enthusiastically supported a better bill that addressed the same problem. It takes more information to find out what a candidate really supports or opposes, and what they’ll do in office, than is provided in clips about their “record.”

Here’s the most confusing and frustrating part of negative campaigning: we all claim to hate it, I’ve heard the railing against it the past couple days, but it works. It is effective. Those over-simplified, negative images of the candidates are what soak in, and we vote, or don’t, accordingly.

Hate millionaires? Vote for Hill. Hate Washington liberals? Sodrel is your guy. Don’t hate anyone enough and just disgusted? Stay home. Don’t want to deal any of it? Cancel your mail and newspaper subscriptions. Disconnect the phone. Don’t watch TV, listen to the radio or open your e-mail. Stuff your fingers in your ears and say, “lalalalalala ... ” when in public. Alternative options are limited.

The obvious option for correcting this bad behavior would be to avoid reinforcing it. However, I’m in an awkward position in this case. To my knowledge, there will only be one other option on the ballet for this race, and I sort of used to work for that guy. It would be a little unethical to nudge anyone in that direction here.

The other options, just staying home, refraining from voting in the specific races which employed negative campaigning, or writing someone in, say, Mickey Mouse or Ozzy Osbourne, all really boil down to not voting, and I’m not advocating that.

A lack of participation actually helps fuel these tactics. There are a handful of voters being targeted, and they’ll show up. The thoughtful and righteously outraged need to show up, too, to balance out the ones up in arms about millionaires and liberals.

Gee, thanks, guys. This is why I didn’t want to go here, take up this topic of our local negative campaigns. Though there is plenty that could be said on the subject, all I really have at the end of the day is empathy.

I hear ya. It sucks. Now I’m depressed.

Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran promises to never not write about campaign robo calls again. But since that’s a double negative, who knows? Write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.