A Campaign Story

In college, I devoted considerable time and energy working for the election of a candidate for the United States House of Representatives.  I met this candidate during his first campaign -- which he lost -- and continued to work for him during his second campaign -- which he won -- and also during many of his later campaigns.  During those first campaigns, I became very well-versed in his background and positions, and I supported him totally.

My tasks included visiting undecided voters.  In the idealistic world of college politics, students would actually fill out cards requesting additional information on our candidate.  If you filled out a card, you got a visit from ME.

As one student invited me into his dorm room, he explained that he was from a distant city, and knew nothing about our local candidates ... but he intended to vote in our local election, so he wanted to educate himself.  He and I proceeded to have a long, pleasant discussion.  As he explained his views, and I explained the views of my candidate, I realized that the student had much more in common with the opposing candidate -- and I told him so.  Eventually, I simply advised him that he would be better-served by voting for the opponent.

The student was incredulous.  "Wait a minute!  You are working for this guy, but you are telling me to vote for his OPPONENT?"

I repeated the idea that, given the similarity between the student's positions and the positions of the opponent, he personally would be better-represented by the opponent.

He continued to voice his amazement.  Ultimately, he said something to the effect of, "If your guy has people working for him who are SO honest that they would tell someone to vote for his OPPONENT ... then I am going to vote for your guy.  You cannot stop me from voting for him."

I told the candidate this story decades later, after he had been in office for a long time, and he seemed pleased.  At the time of my college encounter, it did not seem notable.  Recently, when I tell people of the incident, they seem to find it unique.  Some even say I was wrong, and that I should have encouraged the student to vote for my candidate, no matter what his beliefs.

This incident SHOULD not be unique.  At most, I perhaps should have attempted to persuade the student that his views were wrong, and that my views, and the views of my candidate, were correct.  But, in my mind, I truly was there strictly to provide information to the student -- NOT to debate him, or to gain his vote.  I had so much confidence in the appeal of my candidate that I believed the only thing necessary for him to win the election was for the voters to have honest information about both candidates.

In the real world -- unlike the idealized political world of a college dorm -- most political campaigns are about winning and losing elections, rather than about trying to accurately reflect the will of the voters.  That is, people and candidates do not so much care whether the voters share their views -- they simply want them to vote the way they want them to vote.  And if misrepresenting the views of the candidate -- or especially the views of the opponent -- helps to gain votes, then misrepresentation is acceptable strategy.

The politicians and political campaigns of today, at least in America, totally embrace distortions and oversimplifications and "spin" and outright misrepresentations of both their own positions and the positions of their dreaded opposition.  If someone is so bold as to point this out, the response is merely, "That's just how the game is played.  Both sides do it."

I would love to do a poll.  I would ask people, "If you had it in your power to change the outcome of an election, so the result reflected YOUR will rather than the will of the majority of the voters -- and no one would ever find out -- would you DO it?"  I suppose you could even ask some sub-questions, such as making the election an exceptionally close one.  The trick, as with all polls, would be in getting people to respond honestly.  In a perfect world, I suspect most people would wish that the majority of voters would truly agree with them.  In the real world, I suspect many people would be perfectly happy subverting the outcome of an election.  Assuming you could somehow force people to respond honestly, the most interesting thing, for me, would be to delve into the differences between those who were willing to subvert the will of the voters, and those who insisted on abiding by the will of the majority.  My guess is that many people would choose NOT to alter the outcome of an election, and that most of those people would be from the same party -- but that's a TOTAL guess, and just my unsubstantiated opinion.

I sometimes try to imagine a political system based on total honesty and clarity, where all sides did their best to fully illuminate and clarify both their own positions and plans and the positions and plans of their opponents, and any sort of distortion, oversimplification, "spin", or misrepresentation was viewed as the ultimate sin.  There are a number of reasons why this is unlikely to happen.  For one thing, as people vilify their opponents, they come to truly BELIEVE many of the things that are said, no matter how far they depart from the truth.

There is another quieter, darker reason why people are reluctant to embrace political honesty.  Many Americans -- perhaps most -- harbor deep-seated doubts about the will of the "majority".  That is, each of us tends to believe that WE know what is "best".  The majority opinion is fine, as long as it matches OUR opinion.  In order to achieve this, the majority opinion must be guided and molded by whatever means necessary.  Though I am making this sound somewhat sinister, it is totally understandable and perhaps even defensible.  IF we know what is best for the country and the world, then we should do our best to make it happen, regardless of the will of the majority.  The problem is, no one truly KNOWS what is best.

Truth is complicated.