“Everybody is going to compare and contrast,” she said on MSNBC. “I think that is part of the way campaigns are run.” (Hillary Clinton on the negative tone of the Dem’s race)
Every time you enter a race, a market, or any competition for that matter, you must decide how you will play.
Will you look past “how it is” and instead play it “as it should be”?
It might be worth it. In marketing, it definitely is.
I bet it is in politics, too.
It’s your typical prisoner’s dilemma. Whenever people are in it to win it, they’ll tend toward the negative/negative bracket, and that’s just because of human nature.
One might argue that a politician who invests in the “as it should be” tactic might not be as motivated to win as another candidate, because (let’s face it) mudslinging works. I think it’d be remarkable to see how many people vote based on their emotions, morals, and predetermined perceptions, as opposed to the actual campaign platforms.
That is a good point, but it also lays the groundwork for someone to break through said environment/methodology and inspire lasting change. It’s such a great set up for a real paradigm shift and a real revolutionary to emerge.
But when said revolutionary is on the cusp of said change, they’re forced to consider the net gain and net loss they would face, so to speak.
I’ll preface this by saying I’m extremely cynical about human nature. I see it this way: someone will only inspire others to play “as it should be” when they lead by example. However, the only way they will be effective is by doing so when the stakes are high, and they have to win. The impact of someone choosing the high road in a presidential election for a nation is much higher than someone choosing the high road in the presidential election for Student Body President, but concurrently, the effective potential of each position is equally staggered. And a loss would only reinforce the idea that playing fair inevitably ends in defeat.
To the one contemplating how they should play, it becomes a battle between the “big picture” and their own ambitions. I don’t think I’m explaining this with much clarity. I think I just went back to my prisoner’s dilemma comment with more digression. Blah.
I think the perfect example of how politics is generally played “how it is”, rather than “as it should be”, and how the general populous doesn’t seem to mind, is Clinton and McCain proposing a gas tax removal for the summer. Clearly with the current deficit and lack of a war tax (among other issues), we are in no position to be slicing other taxes and the candidates must know this (not to mention it completely fails to address the overall problem), but they also know that saying gas will be cheaper will get them votes.
It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out, but I bet Obama’s stance against cutting this tax (which in my opinion is the smart thing to do) will hurt him in Indiana.