THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, November 16, 1995 TAG: 9511160741
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: John Pruitt
LENGTH: Medium: 72 lines
If the people who plan political campaigns made candy bars instead, they'd have been out of business long ago.
Candy bar manufacturers, you see, have no choice but to listen when their customers say, ``We don't like the taste of your product.'' It's either change the recipe or take the very unpalatable consequences.
For years now, people have been saying they're dead tired of the mud-slinging of every political race - whether it's a seemingly simple, local outing, the presidency or anything in between.
The labels of ``tax-spending liberal,'' ``puppet of the Christian Right,'' and much worse have worn so thin that my hearing automatically turns off whenever the words are uttered. And I know it's a safe bet that I have plenty of company.
Still, if anyone's listening, it isn't obvious. Ask candidates why they're using such gutter techniques, and the likely answer is that ``the party'' produced those awful things; they sure do wish it hadn't come to that; but, gee, they just didn't have a lot of control.
Besides, they say, their opponents are saying such dirty things that they'd just appear wimpy if they took the high road and stuck to the issues.
It all rings as hollow as a 10-cent store whistle. Most of us don't give a toot whether it's the individual candidate or the party that's responsible. The message is the same: We're tired of it. TIRED. What's so difficult about that?
If candidates won't hear the message that we're not standing idle while they - or their parties - flood our homes with innuendo-loaded advertising, through television, newspapers and our mailboxes, what in tarnation is to convince us that they'll listen once they get elected?
Can't they see that lower turnouts at the polls just might reflect that some voters have just thrown up their hands in disgust, vowing `if this is the way it's gonna be, then'll I'll have none of it.'?
I don't like that response because I can't accept poor citizenship as a proper response to improper campaigning. But I do understand how a steady barrage of junk that has little, if anything, to do with a candidate's qualification to hold an elected post could drive a voter to a boycott.
There's a more effective way. When parties and politicians who wage offensive campaigns hold out their hands for future elections, we can keep our wallets in our pockets.
Or when candidates we support resort to such tactics, we can say no more of that or no more of our money. If that formula doesn't work, heaven knows what would.
I'm convinced that, soon enough, the message would get to the producers of TV commercials, election brochures and print ads. The reason they sling so much mud now is that they believe there is an insatiable appetite for it.
Doesn't that seem strange, since just about anywhere you go during a campaign - particularly the last days - the conversation invariably turns to how dirty things have gotten and how tired we are of it?
If we persist and make it clear that the big-money professionals guiding these mud fests are wrong, things will change eventually. Or, like the persistent manufacturer of faulty candy bars, they'll simply be out of business. And that would be a big change in itself.
In the meantime, we can turn off the TV commercials, skip the offensive newspaper ads, take dirty campaign literature directly from the mailbox to the garbage can and keep a firm grip on our wallets.
That tells me we have the upper hand. Keep up the resistance to campaigns that dish out only dirt, and pretty soon candidates will see a sign: substance, old fashioned substance, is what really excites voters. MEMO: Comment? Call 934-7553.
by CNB