By Mary Catherine Burdine
One day until elections
and we are in the thick of it. Pointing fingers, calling names and
grabbing for any chance to attack one another—this is what everyone is
talking about in the Virginia Senate Race of 2006. And tomorrow, we will
find out which candidate Virginia finds the most fit for office.
Incumbent George Allen, Republican and former Governor, faces stiff
competition, Jim Webb, Democrat and former Naval Secretary. They are
fighting over unimportant and irrelevant things like sexual passages
from novels—not taxes and border controls. Allen stirred up trouble by
providing material to attack the Democrats, but Webb enjoys sitting back
and watching Allen repeatedly make verbal blunders and only jumping in
the attacks when he needs to defend himself.
Rather than promoting what each will bring to Virginia and the nation as
a whole, why are the candidates focused on candidates’ characters and
keeping score of who can make the most verbal mistakes?
Since the 2002 McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, candidates
have been legally obligated to endorse all political ads that directly
support their campaign. The act was optimistic in its attempt to clean
up the dirt in politics. But instead of removing the mud from the walls,
it now shows you exactly who is flinging it. For example, a Google News
search for “Virginia Senatorial Campaign 2006” produced 246 hits on
October 30th. This close to Election Day, one would expect story
headlines of campaign rallies and poll results. However, the type of
headline that found its way to my computer screen was “Virginia Senate
Race Keeps Getting Nastier.”
These headlines come after Allen’s team “leaked” excerpts of Webb’s
critically acclaimed novels to news blog, The Drudge Report. Allen
claims certain scenes, which are fictional interpretations of war,
depict incest and other inappropriate sexual situations. In Allen’s
eyes, this is concrete evidence of Webb’s in competency for public
office. The New York Times reported that Allen called them “very
disturbing for a candidate hoping to represent families of Virginians.”
This is just one of the many attacks the senator has made over recent
months. Pulling quotes from an article Webb wrote in 1979 for The
Washingtonian, Allen exploited Webb’s statements opposing women in the
military, particularly regarding their admission to military academies.
In the outdated article, Webb wrote: “There is a place for women in our
military, but not in combat and their presence at institutions dedicated
to the preparation of men for combat command is poisoning that
preparation.” This was Allen’s primary attack until he lurched at the
opportunity over Webb’s literary passages.
Webb is not innocent in all this either—but merely using Allen’s verbal
missteps to his advantage and forgoing the first hit and instead
choosing to make defensive remarks only when provoked. In response to
the Drudge Report leaks, Webb’s team was quick to shift attention back
to the Republicans. Attempting to thwart criticism of his novels, Webb
pointed to Lynn Cheney’s 1981 novel, “Sisters” which contains allusions
to lesbian affairs, as validation for his own novels’ sexual passages.
The cycle of mudslinging starts with one candidate making comments found
idiotic by the other. By now, the average Virginian who has followed the
senate race has heard about Allen’s use of “macaca,” considered a racial
slur in some parts of Africa, towards a Webb volunteer this summer. The
cycle continues when the candidate (in this case, Allen leaking excerpts
of Webb’s novels) attacks the other in an attempt to deflect attention
at his own mistake. This cycle can continue all the way until the voting
booths are closed. Yet one candidate has the power to stop all the
attacks when they stop giving in.
Rather than focusing on the issues, candidates fight campaigns through
the mudslinging cycle. This means whichever nominee can come out looking
the most wholesome in the end usually wins. Allen’s method: at the end
of ads holding his daughter in his arms; Webb’s: wearing his deployed
son’s combat boots on the campaign trail. Symbolically, these images
represent what each candidate stands for. Allen promotes traditional
family values and American strength while Webb is outspoken in his
opposition to the war in Iraq.
While their stance on the issues is night and day, the average voter
would never know what those symbols correlated with policy wise. All the
average person would hear is that Allen is a racist and Webb hates
women. What good is it going to serve the public when they assume office
to know what Webb published in the 70s?
None. If I were casting a ballot in this state, I would care about the
marriage amendment, our position in the war on terror and the minimum
wage. Those have an impact on daily life for millions, and these two men
have the power to decide how they will.
Let’s put down the vicious attacks and remove ourselves from pointing
blame. Part of Webb’s campaign motto is “America lacks leaders who are
willing to make courageous decisions.” Why won’t he and everyone else
heed that advice and take a stand against dirty politics?
True, this style of campaigning works at reaching the majority of the
public. If it didn’t, then we wouldn’t be discussing Webb’s novels and
Allen’s Confederate pride. We are conditioned to respond to shocking
allegations since modern politics is pervaded with this campaign style.
But mudslinging should not dominate an election. Instead, focus on the
issues. If you’re educated on the issues, the public can concentrate on
casting a meaningful vote, not one based on which campaign successfully
threw the most mud in the other candidate’s direction.
Produced by Washington and Lee journalism students.
Lead supervisor: Prof. Claudette Artwick
Reporting supervisor: Prof. Doug Cumming
Technical supervisor: Michael Todd