3 Things We Should Demand From W And Kerry And The Media

Professor Davida Charney has some excellent suggestions for W (and his scriptwriters AND Karl Rove—the brains of the outfit—and his spear-carriers, like the Dickster) and John Kerry (and his scriptwriters and his handlers and his spear-carriers, like John Edwards). The invective in this campaign of 2004 is an echo of the election of 1800. The Federalist supporters of President John Adams regularly referred to the Vice President and challenger—Thomas Jefferson—as that red-headed son-of-a-bitch. (The 12th Amendment changed the electoral system whereby the runner-up in electoral votes became the Vice President. In 1804, the present system of a presidential ticket was implemented.) Ponder the fun we would have after 2004 if W had Kerry as his veep (or vice versa). However, we are living in a mean season. Charney provides sound counsel in sorting through the sound bites and the blather of the talking heads. If this is (fair & balanced) bombast, so be it.

[x Austin Fishwrap]
Is a candidate playing fair? You can judge for yourself
Davida Charney

Everyday, the Bush and Kerry campaigns are trading the charge that the other has "gone negative." At the same time, they justify their own criticisms of the other side as fair play.

Many people wish the candidates would stop tearing down the other guy and stick to what he wants to accomplish himself. But if there's nothing wrong with the front-runner, why consider an opponent? If things in America are just fine, why vote out an incumbent?

Candidates for public office cannot avoid talking about each other. Anyone who discusses the issues has to describe the way things are and the way things could be.

So even though no candidate will admit to "going negative," everyone seems to do it. Or do they? In some cases, negativity seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Just consider the responses to the Democratic National Convention. Although Democrats saw substance that was mostly positive and fair, Republicans saw a lot of empty Bush-bashing. Isn't there any way to tell mud-slinging apart from a valid objection?

As a teacher of rhetoric (the art of argumentation), I know that a good argument can be heated without being hostile. It can be productive as well as provocative. It can be fair without being phony. Rhetoricians have identified three good ways to judge whether or not a candidate is playing fair.

First, a candidate who is playing fair will routinely refer to the opponent by name.

Using an opponent's name has to become common courtesy again. Using a person's name acknowledges that he or she is a fellow human being, one who has taken the trouble to get involved in the issue, and even a reasonable person. In a free society, it is always reasonable to raise a question or an objection. People of good will can have good reasons for disagreeing. So refusing to name one's opponent is a sure sign that a candidate wants to debase and not debate.

Second, a crucial sign of fairness is getting the other side's position right. Playing fair means summarizing the opponent's position accurately, in a way that the opponent himself would take as a good-faith paraphrase.

The temptation to exaggerate or misrepresent an opponent's claim seems to be irresistible in a political campaign. But any candidate who knowingly twists an opponent's words is a charlatan, running against a bogey as if it were a real opponent. Misrepresentation often makes for better sound bites, so the new media is often complicit in leading voters astray.

Third, it is fair to spell out exactly how the opponent is wrong. The most misunderstood aspect of a heated argument is the negative language of disagreement. There is nothing unfair in saying that an opponent's position is wrong, short-sighted, inadequate, untested, wasteful, inequitable, immoral, risky or disastrous.

Negative terms like these make many people squeamish, especially those who think that an argument can only be fair and constructive if everyone is making nice. But in politics, as in sports, playing fair is different from being nice. Each negative term points to a very specific kind of fault in a position.

It's fair to say that someone doesn't have the facts if he or she can't supply reasons and evidence. It's fair to say that someone's claim is wrong or untrue if you have good evidence to the contrary. It's fair to call someone a liar if he or she keeps on repeating a claim after it has been shown with good evidence to be false.

We can't judge the fairness of a dispute without knowing what was said on all sides. So we have to fight the impulse to screen out any source of news or opinion that doesn't reflect our own interests.

The news media could do a lot more to help.

When one side squeals that the other side is guilty of unfair negativism or politicizing, the media should publish or post online the relevant excerpts from the verbatim records of both parties side-by-side.

Davida Charney is Professor and Associate Director—Division of Rhetoric and Composition—University of Texas at Austin.

Copyright © 2004 Austin American-Statesman