Justifying the Ends with the Means

I don't usually discuss politics on my site. In all honesty, there are too many political sites out there as it is. But I saw this article and felt compelled to discuss a part of it. Specifically, I think the following line demonstrates something sick:

Each speech is read and re-read, heavily edited and rehearsed as part of a tightly controlled process designed to impress independent voters who are tired of negative politics. Mindful of polls showing voters say they need more information about Kerry, the team also is ensuring that speeches are laced with the candidate's biography and policies.

I know both parties do this extensively. What concerns me is the nonchalant tone in this particular article. It's basically saying that the speech writers are serving up what people want to hear and are not relying on the candidate's character as part of the platform. When polls dictate what speeches are given, there is no message. When a candidate fears saying what he feels out to avoid being perceived as too negative, he is masking his own emotions. In other words, the Kerry campaign is doing exactly what they say Bush did to go to Iraq. In their case they are doing it to win an election.

This article means that the media itself is the news rather than the message. Everybody following the election knows that Kerry has taken multiple stances on many issues. But now the news is not about the content of his message but they way its delivered. Nobody is asking what Kerry and the other speakers really mean, how reasonable the stance, and how consistent the message. The end result is that what's presented at the convention supposedly erases all past rhetoric.

Here is the shocker from the article:

The Kerry strategy is based on polls showing more than 90 percent of voters firmly aligned with one party or another, with as little as 5 percent up for grabs. Kerry's polling shows that those "persuadable" voters don't like negative politics. They give Bush poor approval ratings, but they still aren't comfortable enough with Kerry to vote against the incumbent.

"Swing and independent voters are very much up for grabs. Kerry has to make the sale, and he has a long way to go to make the sale," said Harold Ickes, who helped run President Clinton's re-election convention in 1996.

Does that mean it's now completely acceptable to do or say anything to achieve a goal? Like I said, both parties do it, in spades. What I don't like is the way this article makes it seem okay. That kind of social complacency says a lot about where politics are today.

Popularity: unranked [?]