Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile
Before I start, let me state upfront that I'm sincere in my questions. I ask the following without an agenda, unless you consider curiosity an agenda.
I just read the latest chapter in the Joe the Plumber story, and I can't help but wonder a few things. I think it's wonderful that there are a lot of new voters and hope that they continue to stay active. Yet, I question the turn(s) that politics has taken in the last decade or so, no matter the party. Granted, this has been going on for over 200 years in American politics (the James T. Callender bashing of Jefferson comes to mind), but has the internet done us a favor or a disservice? Is it better to have a morally bankrupt president whose policies actively benefit the country or vice versa? Is a news source which covers just one side of the political aisle truly a source, or is it a mouthpiece?
How do you personally feel about politics? Should the saying go, "All's fair in love, war, and politics," or not? Is it fair to destroy someone because of his or her beliefs, even when that person is not really a political figure? |
You're packing a lot in that post, but here goes (without making it sound like a poli sci paper)...
I have said that I think a candidate's personal lives should be off-limits during the election season, except for a few exceptions (recent crimes of dishonesty, assault, murder, etc.). I think we all have friends who may do things to embarrass us, and with the internet age, there's getting to be a longer "paper trail" for things such as divorces, custody disputes, etc. I also don't think religion should EVER be a campaign issue, no matter the religion (Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, etc.). Certain things just don't matter to me as a voter, and in my mind certain things (Edwards and McCain's marital lives, Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright, etc.) are so insignificant that they don't affect my view on their "readiness" to be President.
It might be the former journalist in me, but I think that more information available via the internet is a good thing. It's given us sites like fivethirtyeight.com and others where people can go for information. If you're a liberal, you can go to the Huffington Post and read stories by like-minded people. If you're Conservative, there are simlar places you can go. Granted, the "average voter" isn't going to care about the in-depth policy analysis or any of that, but for the more educated voter, I think it's great that more information is available so much more quickly.
There's a counter-argument to this, of course, in that it also means that there's the possibility for more incorrect or personally-damaging information to be disseminated. It is, after all, the more scandalous information that will attract the "average voter," such as the stories on the marital lives of Edwards and McCain.
I don't think it's appreciably worse, though, than previously. Newspapers have always run incorrect stories, or used untrustworthy sources. One difference, I think, is that the news media isn't as hesitant to publish or announce these rumors. Going back even 40-something years ago, the news media knew about JFK's affairs, and kept it quiet. Now, things like that don't happen.
I'll never be one to say that more information availability is a bad thing, because it's not. I don't think it's fair to destroy a candidate personally, but I think that more information about that person's policies is good and helpful to the electorate who will examine that information.
ETA: Another part of it is the length of the primary season. If we come to a point where the primaries aren't all that close, and the candidates clinch the nomination early, I think we'll see more of this personal digging to put something, anything, in the news cycle.
Threaded Mode
