The presidential campaign has led to a new, thriving cottage industry. In addition to the dirt-hunting staffers and public relations pros, spinners and surrogates, puppet radio talk show hosts and newspaper columnists, there is now a bustling field of fact checkers.
Citizens who care can visit any of several Web sites to discover if Sen. Barack Obama really does advocate for sex education in kindergarten (he does not) or if Sen. John McCain proposed investing Social Security funds in the stock market (also not true).
This information is more accessible than ever, not just on dynamic Web sites but also via daily e-mails, RSS readers, widgets, Google gadgets and even through messages sent directly to PDAs.
This open exchange of information, made more accessible via new media, is a good thing for Americans, and it should lead to more accountability. But it was born of a culture of dishonesty that is … well, nothing but a shanda (shame).
It used to be that candidates trashed each other by distorting the truth or making personal attacks. But that era increasingly seems like the good old days as candidates and their posses have descended to outright lies.
As a citizen, a voter and a mother, I’m appalled. This presidential election is the source of almost daily conversations in my house. My third- and sixth-grade children know exactly how I’ll vote and why. And I am careful to talk not just about emotion but also about specific issues.
We have talked about Election Day as a moment of great hope; whatever happens before or afterward, on that day, we each have an equal voice, I told them, referring to John Greenleaf Whittier’s poem, “The Poor Voter on Election Day.” This interminable election season of almost two years has been a great civics lesson.
But it has also undermined one of the core values that my husband and I work to instill in our children — honesty. Instead, it has shown our children that the end — winning the highest post in the land — justifies any means.
Advertisers are legally bound to avoid downright lies, even if such lies will lead to higher sales, but politicians can say almost whatever they want with no recourse. The ethics that we expect from advertisers, co-workers, bosses, schoolteachers, parents and children do not apply to the top leaders of our nation.
We Americans should be outraged. We Jews should be concerned. Nasty speech has never been good for Jews.
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin writes about the power of speech in private and public life in his 1996 book, “Words that Hurt, Words that Heal.”
“Throughout history, words used unfairly have promoted hatred and even murder,” he said, referring to the medieval Crusaders’ use of the term “Christ killers” for Jews. “Once this verbal characterization took hold, it became easy to kill Jews,” Telushkin writes.
In the long run, we need regulation, real campaign reform that requires candidates to behave according to the same values and ethics that are the vote-getting content of their speeches.
In the short run, we are obliged to wise up and take responsibility for ourselves.
We have learned that negative campaigning works, regardless of a candidate’s record or the inconvenient facts of truth. And that’s our fault as voters.
We buy the hype. We love the drama. We crave the negative. And though polls show that most people believe that they are not affected by negative ads, elections prove otherwise.
We are swayed by our gut reactions to candidates, by their cool demeanor or their folksy style, by their gravitas or their seeming directness. But we overlook the lies, accepting them as an unfortunate part of the process.
In these last weeks before Election Day, let’s get serious and get educated. Let’s examine the issues coolly, uncover the lies and believe nothing without verifying the facts and questioning tone and motive.
In a now oft-repeated observation, Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, ceded that issues will not lead the vote.
“This election is not about issues,” said Davis in a September interview with the Washington Post. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”
Davis and the staff members of both candidates are working to form that “composite view” and are counting on voters to accept the superficial rather than pursue the deeper issues.
But as the great Jewish philosopher Maimonides wrote, “Intelligent people must examine all opinions.” This is our moment to show our children that we are indeed people who value information over hype.
Five fact-checking sites:
Annenberg Political Fact Check (Factcheck.org)
The Center for Public Integrity (www.publicintegrity.org)
The Fact Checker blog (blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker)
Open Secrets (Opensecrets.org)
PolitiFact (www.politifact.com)
Loading ...