Voters Should Insist on Clean Campaigns

Unfortunately, over the past 30 years or so, political campaigns have become nastier and nastier in part because voters do not insist that candidates behave otherwise. When, for example, was the last time that a candidate who used unwarranted personalized attacks, inaccurate or misleading advertisements, irrelevant issues, or unfair or illegal campaign tactics was “punished” on election day?

The consequences of no-holds-barred campaigning can be disastrous to democracy, as University of Texas professor Bruce Buchanan points out in his new book, “Renewing Presidential Politics.” (Rowman and Littlefield, 1996).

If campaigns are mean-spirited shoving matches, rather than a serious discussion of alternative futures, the victorious candidate will not have a real mandate for change, Buchanan argues. Also, when the goal is to destroy, not just defeat, the other side, the purposeful deliberation and compromise necessary to solve vexing problems like the budget deficit becomes impossible to attain. Finally, when citizens see our campaigns as a sham, few want to participate.

As democratic norms become eroded, alternative means of expressing discontent (such as hate groups) become more attractive.

On Sept. 27, I found out--at least for one brief moment--that campaigns can be conducted in a more responsible manner.

The occasion was a candidate forum with Todd Spitzer and Mickey Conroy, who are running for the Board of Supervisors in the 3rd District. The event was a sponsored by the Lincoln Club and was held during their regular meeting at the Santa Ana Country Club.

The race between Conroy and Spitzer up to this point had been hard fought and mean spirited. Recently, The Times Orange County edition’s editorial page chastised Conroy for making an obscene gesture to Spitzer. Spitzer has repeatedly reminded his audiences that Conroy will soon be in court to defend himself against sexual harassment charges.

I expected nothing short of a food fight.

The discussion began with brief opening statements by both candidates, in which they outlined their qualifications before the 69 people seated at two long tables. The questions which followed were informed and elicited thoughtful and candid responses from both candidates. For the most part, there were no cheap shots, grandstanding, direct personal attacks, or irrelevant issues raised. The audience wanted specific answers to important policy questions concerning issues such as the El Toro airport, jails, county finances and loyalty to conservative principles. No questions were asked about political squabbles.

This was an important event for Conroy and Spitzer. The club is one of the most important political forces in Republican Party politics and both Spitzer and Conroy, who are both Republicans, need the support and financial backing of its members.

While it was clear that there was no love lost between them, they conducted themselves in a responsible manner. The audience would have tolerated nothing less. And neither should we.