Improving Political Communication

In studying Political Communication throughout this semester, I have discovered many problems with our democratic form of government. By implementing changes to the way politics are done, perhaps our nation can truly live up to the values and ideals set forth by our founding fathers. Problems that I have seen throughout my studies in this class have been the fact that attacking opponents is seen as normal and a way to survive in a campaign race because they are used to make other candidates seem weak, the campaign promises that candidates make during the race and then do not stick to once they are elected into office, and the brutal campaign ads that candidates have aired on TV that create an image of their opponents that is less than appealing, and sometimes even false. It is through these faults in the democratic form of government and the campaign process that make me less keen on voting and diminish my interest in politics

To begin with, the ways that candidates attack their opponents simply to see them cringe, is a heartless and unethical way of approaching that situation. I know that at an interpersonal level of communication, this does not solve problems amongst people. The attack methods used by candidates can be compared to friends who are in the midst of an argument. It seems common for one friend to outwardly attack the friend they are fighting with for the purpose of making that person upset and seem to be weaker. What gets me about this tactic in regards to professional politicians is that they are reverting back to middle school ways of dealing with problems, which, ultimately, makes them appear to be the weaker candidate. I believe that campaigns should be fair and impartial, and that one candidate should not be allowed to make personal attacks on their opponent that have nothing to do with the political issues on the table. This is unfair and only causes both candidates to appear weak in the long run. By eliminating personal attacks in the campaign realm, voters will be able to vote for the candidate they think is the most fit for the job, rather than disregard that person because of the way they were made to look weak by their opponent.

An example of how this form of personal attacks is implemented can be seen in the documentary that we watched in class, Please Vote for Me in which a 3^rd grade class in China holds their first democratic election where they are voting for their next class monitor. This documentary allows people to glance at the faults the democratic form of government has in regards to the campaign process and the competition amongst candidates. In this specific film there are three kids who were chosen by their teachers to run for class monitor. At the beginning the two boys who are running get the entire class to make fun of the only girl running in order to make her appear weaker. This tactic works. The girl cries in front of her entire class, doubts that she can compete against the other two candidates, and thus, loses the race because she appeared to be the weaker one in her class’s eyes. This may be an extreme example of how the democratic form of government is flawed, but it provides evidence for how hurtful and heartless personal attacks against opponents can be.

Another way in which the democratic government system can be tweaked is when it comes to political campaigns is strongly correlated with the idea of personal attacks. The fault I am alluding to is the blasphemous campaign ads that candidates have been known to air on television in order to discredit their opponents. Frequently, these campaign ads are false and misleading, thus causing the candidate that they are aimed at to lose credibility based on lies. The use of these political ads can be effective in getting their message across, and letting the viewers know where they stand on certain issues, but the ads are usually taken way too far, to the point of harming their opponent’s image. At a crucial time in the campaign process, campaign ads should offer the truth about what that specific opponent believes, rather that talking about what the other candidate believes and how that is the wrong way of thinking. By discussing opponents in campaign ads, candidates risk making mistakes with their information, which can backfire and harm their own campaign rather than the candidate that they were attempting to discredit through their advertisement.

An example of this comes from the 1964 campaign for presidency in which Lyndon B. Johnson was running against Barry Goldwater. The ad, which was only aired one time, portrays a little girl counting the pedals of a flower. Later in the clip the camera focuses on the girl’s pupils, and all you can see in them is a mushroom cloud caused by a nuclear explosion. This vision is referring to the Vietnam War and is an attack towards Republican candidate Barry Goldwater who was said to believe that America should use nuclear weapons in order to fight the war in Vietnam. Although this advertisement was only aired the one time, it is said to be the reason that Lyndon Johnson, the man whose campaign aired the ad, won the presidency that year. Once people saw the ad that was mudslinging candidate Goldwater, they immediately decided that nuclear weapons was not the way to go in regards to Vietnam, and this voted for Johnson. The reason the ad was pulled from the air and the Johnson campaign was criticized for airing it in the first place was because it was used to scare voters into voting for him. This type of vote gaining is unethical and tugs at the heartstrings of the voters in our country, but is used to make someone else appear evil. By forcing candidates to use campaign ads to promote their own positive campaign issues rather than attack the negative campaign issues of their opponents, voters will get a more realistic and truthful depiction of each candidate, and will not be forced to determine what is true and false of what the opponent is saying. Mudslinging such as that previously described is wrong and should not be a part of political campaigning.

Another negative aspect of he democratic form of government in regards to campaigns is the way in which political candidates tend to make campaign promises in order to gain the vote of the citizens, yet when they enter office they fail to stay true to those promises. This tactic in campaigning gives voters false beliefs about how amazing the candidate they voted for is. It makes the candidate appear weaker because they are unable to hold to the promises made to the American people, which make those who voted for that person the first time around less likely to vote for them again.

By changing the ways in which political candidates can campaign for the vote could strongly change the democratic form of government in this country for the better. If candidates are forced to refrain from making personal attacks on other candidates, if they are forced to only make campaign ads that emphasize their positives rather than their opponents negatives, and if they are forced not to make campaign promises that they do not intend to keep, then the entire campaign race every four years will be much more truthful, and the citizens voting will be confident that the person they voted into office was, in fact, the right person for the job. I am aware of freedom of speech, which makes my requests for the democratic government quite moot, but perhaps if my suggestions were attempted then more people would be happier with our form of government and the things that needed to get done would.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy