Politics in 2008 is a dirty game!

This election is a dirty game and we should all scream for the candidates to stop it before we become completely turned off by the entire exercise.

There is an old saying among political campaigners that ‘all is fair in love, war and politics.’ Many a politician will tell you there is much truth in that statement.

As one looks at campaigns, we can see that many aspects of campaigning originated in the United States and migrated elsewhere. There are many examples of this fact including polling, ‘exit polls’, televised debates, the use of the Internet, infomercials, televised commercials and negative advertising. There are few rules when it comes to elections other than the Election Act, the law of sedition, and the Criminal Code.

The real referees in any political contest are the voters themselves. In this election, the voters have been active as witness the number of ‘dropped’ candidates by all Parties who have a ‘checkered’ history and also the outcry to let Elizabeth May participate in the TV debates in spite of the NDP and Conservatives attempt to prevent it.

Are voters doing their duty?

As we look at the current campaign, can we say that voters are doing their duty as the ‘referees’? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be mixed. Voters are not ‘pushing back’ and forcing the politicians to answer their questions and forcing the Leaders to allay their fears of a recession of untold magnitude.

Look at the campaign; where are the policy planks on health care? Yes, the Liberals have promised us assistance for the purchase of drugs for catastrophic illness, which is long overdue.

The NDP has promised to increase the number of medical practioners. But where are the policies and the debates on ‘wait time’, home care, child care and pharmacare?

The Conservatives, to their credit, have taken steps to improve the treatment of the mentally ill. Have any of the other parties given us their views on the mental health issue?

One can ask the same question about foreign policy other than Afghanistan, transportation, the future, food safety, the Inuit and First Nations, tourism, culture and national unity. True, this article was submitted before the two debates and perhaps the journalists will provoke some discourse on these and other issues.

Painting the opposition in a negative light

This election campaign, like the last one, is far too negative and once again we have taken ideas from the United States. Carl Rove, the neo-conservative and long time “W” Bush campaign manager, was an artist when it came to negative campaigning just as Atwater was for Father Bush. It was Rove who introduced the concept of ‘wedge issues’ that the Conservatives in particular are using quite effectively in this campaign while Atwater ran dishonest commercials.

On the question of the cuts to cultural institutions, Harper is firming up his own support, not trying to win over new supporters and is painting the opposition in a negative light.

There is a question about ‘common decency’. Where, for instance, is the line? Does a video of a puffin making a deposit on Dion’s shoulder cross that line?

The same question can be asked about several of the videos being shown on television and the Internet. The public did stand up for Elizabeth May, but on balance voters are sitting back watching the politicians sling muck at each other.

Proctor and Gamble would never permit Colgate Palmolive to sling the sort of muck at them that the politicians do at each other. Why do politicians take it, but soap salespeople do not?

At one time these tasteless commercials where only seen during a campaign, but currently we are seeing them even when we are not in the midst of a campaign. Is it not about time that we asked for relief from negativity and a return to common decency?

Take the promise with a grain of salt

Promises are always a problem in any campaign. Shortly after the 1957 campaign, Donald Fleming, who became Minister of Finance, quipped: “If we knew we were going to win, we wouldn’t have promised so much.”

One should always take any election promise with a grain of salt. One of the positive aspects of having a national media is no longer can a leader, like Mackenzie King did, promise one thing in Quebec and nearly the opposite in the West.

Negativity does impact upon voter turnout. In some campaigns voters do not vote because they have been so turned off. On the other hand, they greatly invigorate supporters of a party that uses negativity. Therein lies the problem; how can the average voter influence the Party leaders to stop the negative ads?

Not voting is not the way to go. Under the new public finance rules, refusing to contribute to a Party is not the detriment it once was as the Parties are now financed in part from our tax dollars.

Not working for a Party might have some impact, but there are always individuals who are happy to work in any campaign, especially if they are compensated for doing so.

Add common decency to the list

Perhaps the answer lies in greater public education and a more attentative media who could umpire the system and cry foul when an ad like the pooping puffin is shown. The media are doing a creditable job with their ‘reality checks’; if only they could add a common decency check to their list.

The question of the publication of public polls is another issue. Do polls influence voters? The answer is yes! Can poll results ‘be cooked’? Yes they can. Do polls have too much influence? Again, the answer is yes!

Should we ban the publication of polls once the writ is dropped, as the French do? The answer is, perhaps. What is required is a standard form for all polls particularly as to the order of the questions; the way the poll was conducted (i.e.; telephone, Internet, in person at the door or on the street.)

We need to know the size of the poll, how many individuals refused to answer any part of the poll, and was there a separate line for refused to answer and don’t know? If the poll does not give this information or if the media refuse to give it then the poll must be discarded and Elections Canada declare it as unacceptable. The policy of certain media outlets in not releasing polling data in the closing days of a campaign should be encouraged.

Is it too much to hope that final days of this campaign will be free of negative advertising and the use of ‘wedge issues’? It would be nice, but one suspects they are dreaming in Technicolour: Maybe next time.