The BDN Editorial Board operates independently from the newsroom, and does not set policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
Call us overly sentimental or naive, but it seems to us that more political opponents used to be able to disagree without disparaging each other personally. Perhaps campaign debates have never been shining examples of respectful sparring over policy differences, but it sure feels like the mudslinging has far outpaced the substance as of late.
Case in point: a recent senatorial debate in Wisconsin between Republican incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson and Democratic Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes. Now, the entire debate wasn’t exactly a friendly affair, with both candidates rhetorically attacking each other over various issues. But Johnson delivered a particularly ugly moment (and received grumbling and boos from the crowd for it) with his response to what should have been a simple and uncontroversial question.
“When we traveled around the state talking with voters, we heard repeatedly from people tired of divisive politics and attack ads,” moderator Charles Benson said at the end of the Oct. 13 debate. “So, our final question here tonight is: Both of you have been successful in life. You have 30 seconds here. Mr. Barnes, you go first. What do you find admirable about your opponent?”
Barnes, who had his own personal digs at Johnson earlier in the debate, followed the moderators’ prompt and actually answered the question without turning it into another attack.
“I do think, you know, the senator has proven to be a family man, and I think that’s admirable. You know, that’s absolutely to be respected,” Barnes said. “He speaks about his family. He’s done a lot to provide for them. I absolutely respect that.”
Then, it was Johnson’s turn to say something nice. Well, at least in theory.
“Likewise, I appreciate the fact that Lt. Governor Barnes had loving parents — a schoolteacher, father worked third shift. So he had a good upbringing,” Johnson said. “I guess what puzzles me about that is, with that upbringing, why has he turned against America? Why does he find America awful?”
Maybe this moment said more about Johnson individually rather than serving as a sorry reflection of politicians and political discourse generally. But we can’t help but see this failure to provide even one unqualified compliment to an opponent as a sign of the times.
Increasingly, it seems that politicians not only get away with displays of nastiness, inflammatory accusations, and even anger and aggression, but are actually rewarded for it with votes and campaign cash. Too often, a political opponent is treated not as someone who has different views or experiences but someone who has turned against the country. They are not just someone who you think is wrong about something but someone who lies. They are not just a political opponent but an enemy. This is wrong, and it has a spiraling effect in our politics and our society.
The people of Wisconsin don’t need us to tell them what to think about the recent debate and performance of these candidates, but we do think people across America need to think about what they want from their political leaders. Will voters reward accusatory and self-assured soundbites over substantive debate? Are things like respect and accuracy quaint afterthoughts? We sure hope not.
