OCTOBER. The leaves are turning, jackets begin to outnumber shorts, and voters are bombarded with campaign messages in anticipation of next month's election. The two candidates in the final heat for the governor's mansion are Mark Earley (R) and Mark Warner (D). Due to a recent onslaught of charges from the Earley camp, the dialogue had dropped to that which appeals to the lowest common denominator. There are several reasons that preclude both from discussing more challenging topics, like where college funding will come from, and leave both sounding like broken records. Such politicking is lamentable in a time when the government is receiving so much attention. This is bad for the voter in the long run.
This dumbing-down effect of politics is appropriate to the traditionally low-participation rate of eligible citizens in the political process, as it reduces debate on issues that have deadlocked our legislature in hours of debate into a 30-second sound bite. Take, for example, the statewide debate hosted by the University's Center for Governmental Studies two weeks ago. When given the chance for limited dialogue with a wide audience, the two avoided opportunities to highlight any policy difference from their opponent. Earley repeatedly accused Warner of proposing a tax hike in literature produced by the Warner campaign. Warner always returned the favor accusing Earley of negative "old-style" politics.
|
Herein lies the problem: each had between 30 and 90 seconds per comment. Earley skillfully made a politically poisonous accusation of Warner wanting to raise taxes. Though this simplifies what Warner proposed in his literature, it is easy to understand: More taxes mean less money from each paycheck, which is bad. After Earley first made the claim, Warner did his best to condense his argument for why Northern Virginians should have the right to tax themselves in order to fund highway improvements. However, this response is more complicated and requires a greater comprehension of municipal and state government. Eventually, Warner stopped trying to explain his plan in the face of Earley's simplistic criticism and began to accuse him of negative campaigning and manipulation. Thus, an hour of prime-time television was reduced to a repetitive squabble between two politicians sporting more makeup than substance.
Directly following the debate, each candidate spoke at a few town-hall style meetings attended by prominent business and civic leaders. Here, a very different image of the two candidates arose. In the face of a highly educated and politically aware audience, each candidate outlined different ideas for topics such as economic development and recovery in Virginia and how to catch up on all the capital improvements on roads and in public universities. Not one of these issues received more than a few short minutes on the televised debate.
Candidates with integrity should refrain from taking advantage of the sound bite. The dialogue must be broadened to be challenging and distinguishing between candidates. This is possible in the promotion of more public forums with both candidates. The trend in Virginia shows a movement from many joint appearances in public to seldom being seen near one's opponent and only one or two televised debates. This must be reversed. Candidates must appear several times in the various regions of the state, not once per media market.
These changes involve implications for the public as well. Candidates may resort to lowball tactics to try to hit as many potential voters as possible, not simply the elite few with the time and means to intimately examine and consider each platform. Yet some citizens claim negative campaigning contributed to their political disenfranchisement. Only 45 percent of eligible citizens are registered to vote, and fewer still go to the polls on a statewide election year. It is in the voter's best interest for a candidate to discuss more comprehensive issues. It is then that one can nail down a candidate to a certain political demand or platform in case he wins the election.
When candidates make the election process more engaging to voters, the entire Commonwealth wins. Negative politics disappears, candidates can be held accountable for policy they advocate, and voters have real information to weigh before making a decision on Election Day. The problem here lies in the power of sound bites to oversimplify issues and easily distort ideas. Gilmore mastered it with his car tax plan in 1997. Earley has done this skillfully in his portrayal of Warner. Warner cannot get out from under Earley's attacks. For this and other reasons, the gubernatorial race has turned from a double-digit Warner lead into a dead heat. The Commonwealth may see exactly how effective this undesirable campaign tactic is Nov. 6.
(Preston Lloyd's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 20 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
