Clean up dirty campaigns

Mudslinging during political campaigns is as American as baseball and apple pie. It's just not as nice.

In fact, dirty campaigning is older than baseball.

In 1796, the first presidential campaign that didn't involve George Washington, John Adams was described as a gross and shameless monarchist and Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist and coward, according to "John Adams," a book by David McCullough.

The election of 1800 was even more contentious.

Although mudslinging is rich in tradition, it's growing old. Voter turnout is usually dismal in American elections, and at least part of the blame sits on the doorstep of negative campaigning.

Voters would be better served if politicians waged positive campaigns.

Comedians sure wouldn't suffer. The late night kings of comedy are quick to point out that nothing is funnier than the truth.

Citizens wouldn't be forced to constantly vote for the lesser of two evils. If politicians spent half as much time and money on selling themselves instead of trashing their opponents, the people could start voting for candidates that they actually believe in.

If the election process included more straight talk about issues, policies and problem solving, voters could go to the polls with logic instead of emotion.

If elections were decided by voters who were armed with facts and information instead of rumors and innuendos, then both the process and the people would be better off.

Editorials RSS feed