Seems to Me

Keep it clean — the campaign, that is.

Seems to me, words matter. So do actions and intent. This is 2022 — an election year for county officials in Arkansas along with many other offices. Let’s keep it clean — the campaigns! You will never regret being kind. As my mother might say, “anyone with one eye and half sense” would agree that we find ourselves in a very politically polarized time; a time of partisan bickering that keeps government from working like it should to provide protections and services for the people. It starts on the campaign trail and continues in the halls of Congress, in the Statehouses, in the courthouses and city halls. We have lost ground when the words “conservative” and “liberal” are hurled as insults as opposed to them being used to provide a general picture of a person’s political persuasion. Especially when the vast majority of the populace tends to be “moderate”. A moderate is conservative on some issues; liberal on others; but has the wisdom and fortitude to work with others to reach a compromise for the good of all. Notice that I used “compromise” as a noun — not a verb. Used as a verb it takes on the connotation of imperiling or jeopardizing with an attached idiom of “cook one’s goose” or “play havoc with.” Using the word “compromise” as a noun means a settlement or agreement reached by mutual concession with the attached idiom of “happy medium.” Our nation, state and counties are comprised of people that represent different backgrounds, political philosophies, races, professions, and religious persuasions. We must look upon diversity of experiences as a strength rather than something to exploit for political gain. I believe county officials can, should, and must set the standard for political discourse for others to follow. And we can start this political campaign season, if you haven’t already, by challenging those that want to divide us by communicating in a manner that upholds the ideal that our republic democracy is grounded in the respect and dignity of every man and woman. Seems to me that with each successive election cycle we see and hear more negativity. More time and money is spent to attack and belittle the character of a candidate’s opponent rather than using the time, money, and effort to espouse the candidate’s virtues and his or her views on relevant issues for the office being sought. Many years ago, humorist Will Rogers said, “Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.” That statement is truer today than the day Rogers said it. Why? I’ve already addressed it. It’s because of the mean and dirty tone of our political campaigns which sets the stage for the same type of governing.

Can candidates win elections by running positive campaigns? Absolutely. A positive campaign is a campaign in which a candidate focuses primarily on relevant issues related to the office for which they are a candidate, their own views, their own experiences, and their own virtues — without attacking their opponent in an attempt to gain votes. On the other hand, a negative campaign is one where a candidate uses attack ads and rhetoric to deliberately frame his or her opponent as foolish, inexperienced, irresponsible, disconnected, or just a bad person as a means of presenting him or herself as a more desirable alternative. Why anyone would listen to that kind of malarkey is beyond me. Campaign and win on your own merits — not someone else’s demerits. Dirty campaigns [that’s what I call them] are nothing new. Negative campaigns go at least as far back as Cicero and the Roman Republic. In the United States, specifically, smear campaigns have a long and dishonorable tradition, all the way back to the first contested American presidential election in 1796. But, just because dirty campaigning has existed for centuries does not mean that it’s right. Words matter. In democracies, elections are essentially popularity contests — the possible exception being the presidential election which has the Electoral College to complicate things and make it possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and still lose an election. However, that’s the exception and not the rule. If, then, the goal of candidates is to get the majority of voters to “like” them, human psychology would support the argument that their best option would be to behave and campaign positively. People naturally prefer positive people to negative ones. They naturally respond better to those who are kind than those who are not. Logically, then, the ideal strategy for a candidate would be to make his or her campaign as positive and cordial as possible. The best way for a candidate to increase favorability among voters is to run a positive campaign. Much has been written about voters’ attitudes towards elections, their perceptions, and how positive and negative campaigns affect voters differently. Americans love to hate political campaigns. Majorities believe that negative, attack-oriented campaigning is undermining and damag-

Eddie A. Jones County Consultant

ing our democracy; that unethical practices in campaigns occur often; and that in terms of ethics and values, election campaigns in this country have gotten much worse in the last 20 years. Studies have shown that negative campaigning reduces the total number of citizens involved in democratic elections, thus undermining the power of the people to voice their options. The virtue of positive campaigning is reflected in results. West Virginia has been in the news a lot lately, so let’s start with a campaign of yesteryear from West Virginia:

In 1958, Ken Hechler, a 44-year-old political science professor at Marshall College in Huntington, West Virginia, ran a successful campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives. His victory surprised many. After all, when he entered the race he was a plain looking bachelor who had never run a campaign before, had no backing from any politicians or organized labor groups, had only lived in his congressional district for a year before he started campaigning, and was campaigning against two candidates who had both been born and raised in the district, one of whom was a two-time Congressman and distinguished obstetrician. Ken worked tirelessly. Given the fact that hardly anyone in his district knew who he was, and the other disadvantages already discussed, he also had to be quite creative in order to get publicity. After winning his first election, Hechler served as representative of West Virginia for 18 years and later as the West Virginia Secretary of State for an additional 16 years.

This means that over 34 years of service as an elected public official, Hechler won over a dozen elections. Hechler had 10 rules for his campaign, rules to which he attributes much of his success. The third of these rules was “Be constructive and campaign cleanly.” This he did. The results speak for themselves. As the results rolled in on election day, Fischer was congratulated by Nebraska Governor Dave Heinemann and Senator Mike Johanns for her campaign’s positive tone in the face of a deluge of attack ads. Her strategy from the beginning was to remain positive. It worked. Also in 2012, Pat McCrory was elected as North Carolina’s first Republican governor in 20 years. Although he had lost the previous race in 2008, McCrory decided to run again, and this time he promised to run an only positive campaign. He made good on his promise. During his campaign McCrory never ran one negative TV or radio ad against his opponent. In every ad his campaign created he talked about what he wanted to do as governor of North Carolina, his policies, his issues, and his plan for the future.

In his first news conference as the state’s new governor, McCrory attributed his election to the fact that he ran a positive campaign, stating that candidates “can win with a positive message.” Each of these three individuals ran positive campaigns. Each of these individuals won the campaigns they were in. Each of these individuals, along with their various supporters, believe that they were better for having campaigned cleanly and that they won their elections, in part at least, because they refrained from negativity and campaigned positively. Positive campaigning is more likely to garner a candidate a larger number of voters and those voters will also be more trusting of and optimistic about the candidate they choose to support due to the positivity of his or her campaign. Some would say that even in a positive campaign it is fair for the candidate to deliver a fact-based criticism of an opponent or to refute falsehoods and inaccuracies. That’s a judgment call — but in many cases it is best to leave it alone. If anything must be refuted it must be done in a way that is dignified and without anger. And you never, I repeat NEVER mention the name of your opponent or his or her campaign. Don’t provide them free advertising. In one of my campaigns 35 years ago, I told one of my friends, “Take a good look at me, because you’ll never recognize me once my opponent gets done with me.” It was a rough campaign. Not so much at the hands of my opponent but by my opponent’s handlers and supporters. But I stayed on the high road and conducted a clean campaign. I never mentioned my opponent or my opponent’s campaign. I ran a campaign based on my merits. When it was all said and done, I won that election with 67.6 percent of the vote — garnering the largest percentage of votes cast for any candidate on the ballot that year. I felt fortunate and was honored to have polled more votes than anyone else on the ballot — but truly believed that I could have lost that race if I had decided to go negative. The preponderance of the evidence shows that positive campaigns are more effective than negative campaigns. Conducting a clean campaign should not be an apparition or an anomaly. It should be the norm. Words matter. Actions matter. Use your words and actions in your political campaign to unify; to build up; to provide hope; to spread truth; and, of course, tout what you will strive to accomplish in that office. Remember that a healthy mind does not speak ill of others. Help to reset the tone of our political discourse. Seems to me if we want politics and government to be better, we must be better.