Welcome, Kiddies: You’re in Dishonestpoliticaladland
Uh, oh: here comes the most grating phrase of the 21st century — and it’ll come from both sides:
FALSE EQUIVILANCY.
But, let ‘er rip: because today was a day when Camp Obama and Camp Romney both released ads that are widely seen as…truth impaired. So let the emails (“You’re not nice to progressives! You’re not nice to conservatives! You’re a closet Democrat! You’re a closet Republican! I bet you eat Chick-Fil-A! I bet you watch Michael Moore movies!) begin.
First, from Camp Romney, an ad on welfare that again suggests Mitt Romney is trying to ignore his own record as Governor and has real problem with not saying things that would make Pinoccio’s nose grow. GO HERE.
Second, an ad from an Obama-allied Super Pac (spare us the emails about how the Obama campaign has nothing to do with it since they have not denounced it) that is also truth impaired. GO HERE.
So if you read an indignant post on a weblog or a story on a website going after one side and ignoring what the writer’s own side did just remember: it’s a case of the pot calling the pot a pot. Yes, there is an equivalence when it comes to both parties fighting bare knuckle-style.
THE REALITY: This will be an intensely fought campaign, with both sides pulling out all stops. It may be easier in the end deciding which candidate you most agree with than which campaign was the most pristine.
Share This
JG, if you did ALL this: “You’re a closet Democrat! You’re a closet Republican! I bet you eat Chick-Fil-A! I bet you watch Michael Moore movies!) begin.” You would make one fine moderate.
Or you could go here which seems to be the most informative and tells more about where the ads air, how long they are, who produced them and an accurate analysis. This bypasses the partisan websites linked above.
Type into your search engine:
AP AdWatch August 7. 2012
(Note: You can just type August and get more, but Aug 7 is the date of the ads mentioned in this article).
That partisans on both sides will point to their opponents lies while ignoring those from their own side is unsurprising and disappointing at the same time.
But I disagree with your last sentence. Choosing a president is not just about choosing who you most agree with. At least for me, and I’d hope most others, it’s about choosing someone that has integrity. And if both candidates are willing to lie, or look the other way while others lie on their behalf, they don’t deserve to be president, period. Voting for the lesser of two bad choices only ensures that we always have bad choices.
Ad, I agree with the premise that integrity is desirable and is currently lacking, but then what? Don’t vote at all?
I like to think of my vote cancelling out someone else’s and hope fo the best.
Vote for a third party candidate, if there is one that has integrity and you can tolerate their views, or write in “None of the Above”. Although that is effectively the same as not voting, at least it has the possibility of being counted and cannot be confused with indifference which is usually assumed of those that don’t vote.
Thinking in the long term, I just don’t see how things can change unless voters express their dissatisfaction with their choices, and the only place that expression matters is in the voting booth. Imagine if the winner got 40% of the vote, and loser got 30% of the vote, and the other 30% said they didn’t like either choice. Sure, the winner would still win, but the message would be sent: there’s a whole lot of voters out there ready and willing to support a candidate with more integrity next time around.
I know that is almost certainly a fantasy, but even if I’m one of 0.1% instead of 30% that votes in this way, as a matter of principle I can’t participate in a scheme that guarantees bad government in one form or another.
I voted for Perot, and regretted it, so I’ll keep to my cancellation strategy.
Ad, here’s what happens in your 40/30/30 vote allocation situation. The winner not only ignores the “warning” shot across their bow, but claims a “Mandate” with a 10% lead over the next candidate to do whatever they feel like doing. As long as they win by 1 vote, politicians feel completely vindicated in whatever strategy was used to get them into office. The idea that they see 3rd party votes as anything other than a siphon on their opponents votes to win is wishful thinking on the part of those who want more options in this country.
And as far as false equivalency goes, I’ve been listening to the most outrageous BS from conservatives for years now. From “The Clinton Chronicles” in the 90′s, to the Swift Boat douches in 2004, to the birthers and those who claim Obama is a Muslim today. And there are many, many more examples of major, policy shaping outright misinformation narratives employed by conservatives. Yes, democrats can have a very tenuous relationship with the truth at times. But it is hands down the right that seems to have made twisting information and spewing at the public a full fledged industry. People that get their news from FOX are people that rarely have any idea what the hell they are talking about, and are misinformed to a ludicrous degree. Take your pick on any given topic.
The mere fact that the two biggest “Liberal” agencies out there, at least if you ask a conservative, are colleges and news media should tell you something. Both are institutions that deal with new information, thinking, and learning about things. That they have been demonized in my mind means one thing. Those doing the demonizing are not friends of new information or ways of thinking. They enjoy it when we just swallow whatever is thrown at us and don’t do any critical thinking on our own. Its a good way to infer agendas and who is trying to manipulate me.
slamfu,
The 40/30/30 scenario has never come close to happening, at least in recent history on a national scale, so I have no historical basis on which to judge what might happen. You’re reasoned guess is as good as mine, but I stand by mine. But, even if you are right, what alternative is there? Many of the founders said, and I agree with them, that the success of the experiment of representative government depends on the integrity of the people. By extension, it is implied that representatives with integrity are essential. If we won’t withhold our vote from politicians without integrity, the experiment has failed. Seeing no other legitimate form of government, I’m constrained to do what I can to make it work, even if it might not.
As for the false equivalency, while it’s debatable, I think you can make a good argument that you are right. But again, it comes down to voting for the lesser of two bad choices, which doesn’t resolve anything.
Also, slamfu, something you are not considering.
The winner may indeed consider him to have a mandate and do whatever he pleases. It’s not the winner I’m concerned about. It’s those that didn’t run at all, some of whom presumably have integrity. They see that 30% as an opportunity, and if they know those voters will reward them for their integrity, they are more likely to run. If they can win that 30%, plus win over some others on the issues, they just might win.
Both sides do similar things. But in politics nothing is ever exactly the same way twice. The two parties use this to both point at the other party when trying to excuse themselves while also claiming “false equivalency” when the other side does. In the end it is about escaping accountability for both side.
http://riseofthecenter.com/2012/05/17/political-false-equivalence-excuses-and-the-analogy-of-the-embezzler-and-the-thief/10562/