Who's Worse?

Political negativism has gone mainstream. And it goes on for longer. (At least it seems that the political season, the “silly season,” never ends.)

It seems reasonable to me that those who consider themselves as potential officials charged with the responsibility of running our government and dealing with the problems which our society might face should offer the reasons why they believe they deserve our votes. They would tell us what qualifies them for the position they seek, and indicate what problems exist or are foreseeable, and how they would deal with those problems. In short, they would tell us why we should vote for them.

That, however, is not the case. Over the years the emphasis has been more on why we should not vote for their opponents. Less and less of the conversation deals with the proposals of the candidates themselves, and more involves the real or imagined faults of the individual running in opposition. What they want us to do is to vote against him (or her), which requires voting for them. And we get less and less information about them. That seems to be less important.

I used to vote for the candidate who had less negative to say about the individual running against him, but that's getting harder and harder to do. As the years go by there has been an increased emphasis on denigrating the other party, rather than presenting one's own qualifications. And the media aid in this tactic. After all, it sells.

For example – actually it's my favorite example of biased journalism – the New York Times, which is considered by many to be the standard of objectivity and excellence in American reporting, has adopted this approach to the presidential election which will take place in November (and to other campaigns as well). In recent weeks and months it has been the practice, on all too many occasions, for the lead article on the front page to be something finding fault with Donald Trump. That's not difficult to do. He has many flaws, and not much – if anything – to offer, but his failings don't deserve the prominence they are giving it. There are often several “Op-Eds” that belittle him as well, and a large number of letters to the editor which carry the same message. There is an enormous amount of coverage of a candidate whom they are sure to criticize strongly at election time.

In contrast, former Secretary of State Clinton is rarely the subject of a front page story or an “Op-Ed” in the Times. They have little to say about her. Nor are there many letters about her that are printed. It's possible that all they consider positive about her isn't newsworthy but a reader who doesn't already favor her – one honestly interested in learning about her views – is unlikely to get very much information about her in that paper. (In reality, she has numerous flaws as well.) Nor will there be much, if there is anything, about third-party candidates. It's almost certain that the Times will endorse Secretary Clinton when election time comes around, but they have almost nothing to say about her now. Their time and space are spent in disparaging Trump.

It's hardly a specific fault of the Times nor limited to this election, but as the years pass it is becoming more and more the usual pattern in election coverage. And in the way that candidates present themselves. Even in local elections there seems to be a plethora of brochures which spend more and more time denigrating a candidate's opponent than in telling us what “the good guy” is proposing – why we should vote for him. Negative advertising seems to be the primary method of addressing voters. Attacks. And the language used to describe that opponent has become increasingly harsh as the years have passed. The most important focus seems to be the message that “the other guy” is the greater of the evils, whereas I'd rather learn which candidate is the greater of the goods. And why.

Not surprisingly, I'm not alone. Unhappy voters are sitting out elections. The percentage of potential voters who actually go to the polls is embarrassingly low. Or they're voting for third-party candidates. (Interestingly, there was a letter in the Times in which the writer stated that she would not vote for a third-party candidate because that was the equivalent of giving the advantage to one of the other two. But she was reluctant to vote for either of the major party offerings, and would probably not vote for either on election day, leaving that choice blank. I find it hard to distinguish between the two approaches, but it seems to have made sense to her.)

Is there a solution to the problem? Probably not. As I mentioned, negative sells – especially when there are few positives. And negativity works. But it works less as more candidates adopt it, which is what they are doing. All it leads to is an increase in voter dissatisfaction and lower turnouts. Until we revolt and demand that candidates tell us what they have to offer rather than limiting their rhetoric to a description of someone else's faults, they'll continue to attack. And until a way is found to hear the positions of those who, because they are not candidates of major parties, have little interest shown in them by the media.

Seems unlikely to me. In front of every silver lining there's a cloud. And I fear that this one is here to stay.