R.I.P. R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

I have considerable concern about the future of our political system. This stems not from my status as a member of a political party whose influence appears on the wane in California. Were I a registered democrat, I would harbor similar misgivings.

My concern is not about the direction our state is heading, which is a derivative problem. Rather, I fear the tone of elections is scaring away the type of people we need to actually fix our fiscal mess. The political debate has become more about vilifying opponents than presenting positions on the issues relevant to our future. Campaigns no longer focus on presenting political positions; they have devolved into an unsightly race to the gutter. Candidates no longer debate raising or lowering taxes, or increasing or cutting spending, but as President Obama once said, they focus on, “[painting] your opponent as someone people should run from.” Candidates are no longer respected by their opponents, which leads to acrimonious contests where anything goes, which means nothing is fair.

This philosophy ran rampant throughout the past election cycle, especially in the San Jose District 8 city council race. Labor unions and the Chamber of Commerce bombarded our district with mailings touting one candidate as an irresponsible flip-flopper and the other as an unfit-for-duty opportunist. Both spoke of the need for returning city services to a level that the citizens deserve, neither laid out a path for getting there. Neither candidate presented a thoughtful plan explaining how we dig our city out of its fiscal hole.

Many point fingers at the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and the subsequent U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in Speechnow.org v. FEC for the flood of money tainting campaigns. This ignores the existence of negative campaigns predating those decisions. The 2006 San Jose mayoral race was filled with accusations of unethical conduct, racism, and general name calling. In early 2010, our mayor vilified city workers in his state of the city address, a preview of the uncivil attitude surrounding that summer’s campaign for Measures V and W. Campaigns constantly head for the gutter, which unfortunately scares away the good candidates needed for truly changing the trajectory of government finances.

Blame it on voters…negative campaigning works. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2005 reform initiatives failed under a deluge of public employee union spending. In District 8, the avalanche of negative mailers marked a rare event in San Jose history -- an incumbent candidate for city council did not win reelection outright in the June primary. In the state senate district 15, ads attacking his opponent helped the victor win by a significant margin.

Only voters can overcome this bias towards negativity. If we want qualified candidates who present compelling arguments for the future direction of our political entities, we must not let negative campaigning scare us away from qualified candidates. We must demand contests where candidates outline ideas instead of attacking opponents. Respect should permeate our political atmosphere, not epithets
.

Bill Clinton noted in his address at last summer’s Democrat National Convention that “democracy does not have to be a bloodsport, it can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest.” We voters are the only ones capable of bringing that vision to fruition.