Monday, October 13, 2008

By the way they've been implemented in elections of late, negative ad campaigns seem to be par for the course in all campaigns. Are voters really reduced to these levels? Is the lowest common denominator, the average voter, truly gullible to the rhetorics of spin and slander?

I'm not even explicitly referring to the American practice of using these ads; democratic candidates worldwide seem intent on creating hideous caricatures of their opponents, whether they deserve it or not.

I find this practice sickening and incredibly offensive to the voting public. In the US, the Reps have accused the Dem. candidate of putting "ambition over country." I'm sorry, really? Really? For one thing, if you are resorting to putting these sorts of messages out, you're pretty much doing the same thing. Labeling themselves as "mavericks" really harms the definition of maverick in the first place. This parody reflects my feelings perfectly.

Labeling Obama as an elitist may not be the main attack currently, but I want to bring this up, anyway. Politicians, especially those who aspire to the higher positions of power, need to exhibit a greater than average aptitude in issues of a geopolitical and economic nature. It's not something to be made fun of; it's the same as when the school bully or dumb jock nudges his buddies into agreeing with him when he points at someone and says "dur hur hur nerrrrd".

I am pissed. You don't even have to look far to see negative politics in action; just check the "national" section of your paper. I'm not saying that we should restrict this sort of thing; after all, in a democratic environment, freedom of speech should be a respected right. But with all rights, responsibility is mandated with its usage. By assuming your public are people who can't think for themselves, you are essentially insulting their collective intelligence and baiting their resentment.

Oh god, they're playing that stupid canned milk powder commercial again.

No comments: