Impacts of the Sleaze Factor and the Role Played by Media - Term Paper Example

Task Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 1 Impacts of the Sleaze Factor and the Role Played By Media 4 2 Sleaze as a Formof Campaign Strategy 4 1.3 Sleaze Factor 5 1.3.1 Dirty Campaign Tricks 5 1.3.2 Money Laundering 6 1.3.3 Ruthlessness 6 1.3.4 Lack of loyalty 7 1.3.5 Temper and Nastiness 8 1.3.6 Giving Political Favors To Big Contributors 8 1.3.7 Infidelity 8 1.4 Conclusion 9 Works Cited 10 1.0 Introduction The Sleaze Factor was the major theme in the Republican Party campaigns in 1988 presidential elections. The sleaze factor emerged from Reagan’s presidency and endangered the election campaign of President George Bush, which feared the political capital gained by democrats’ Michael Dukakis. One of the campaigns, which maximized the use of sleaze factor, was one by President George Bush. In the 1984 presidential elections, the democrats had nominated Walter Mondale to lead them in the presidential race; he however failed to be elected. The democrats therefore devised new ways, which would help them win the next election. The democrats won back the senate after president Reagan was mentioned in involvement in Iran-contra, their hopes raised that they would win presidency (Kathleen). The party leaders recruited Mario Cuomo who chose not to run for the presidency. Gary Hart the Colorado senator had shown some interest in presidency, however questions concerning extramarital affairs arose and, this tarnished his name in the campaign. The media termed him as a reputed adulterer and wife beater. He however did not give up on his campaigns. Joe Biden was also part of the race in 1988 presidential elections but Neil Kinnock accused him of using his speech illegally with only slight alterations. This led him to withdraw from the presidential pursuit. Bush was tied to scandals from the Reagan administration, which included the Iran-contra; the Dukakis camp had attacked them (Lafeber 268). Governor Dukakis was criticized that he was uninformed on matters pertaining to the military. This move devastated his public relations; Bush used this to damage his campaigns and explained that he would not make a good commander-in-chief. Republican Willie Horton attacked Dukakis that he had failed to clean up the pollution on the harbor (Lafeber 269). Rumours also spread in the media that Dukakis wife had burned the American flag to protest against Vietnam War. 1.1 Impacts of the Sleaze Factor and the Role Played By Media The first man nominated by the democrats for the presidential race did not have the qualities to suit him to be in the Whitehouse. Many mocked him that his qualities would only make a Babylonian priest and not a president. American presidential elections have always relied on the use of patriotism the republicans had appealed that Michael Dukakis was not liberal and did not consider patriotism as an important factor. Al gore campaigned as a presidential aspirant as a democratic candidate in 1988, however, he did not succeed. He was highly criticized for attacking fellow politicians, Jackson and Dukakis. These accusations brought about political scandals, which damaged the reputations of the presidential candidates. Each candidate had a nasty thing to say about the others; this however, did no help them to win. It actually confused the voters who had a task in selecting the person who would represent them as their president. George bush however won the elections despite the fact that he was accused of being associated with the Iran-Contra affair. The media played a great role in the in the investigative reporting of dishonesty and scandals facing the presidential candidates. They act as public watchdogs representing the public interest. The 1988 presidential campaigns used media to tarnish each other’s names. The media tends to focus so much on negative campaigning rather than positivity. Most of the politicians used attack advertisements as their political strategies; they were so prevalent that it was termed as the year of negativity. 1.2 Sleaze as a Form of Campaign Strategy Successful campaign strategies are a result of careful planning and effective execution of the campaign plans (Democratic Gain 1). Many political adversaries employ various strategies to either discredit or gain political advantage ahead of their political opponents. To achieve this a thorough and conclusive research onto an opponent is always required as one must assess the opponent’s strengths, weaknesses and strategies that can be exploited to enhance one’s chances of success in winning an election. This is because in developing a winning campaign strategy, one must first start with an in-depth understanding of his candidature, the opposition and the voters. It is common knowledge that the core of every campaign is to convince voters that they can trust the candidate to support their interests better than their political opponent (Pedersen), and that they are the best people for that position. In order to achieve this objective, ‘campaign research’ is employed by the opposing parties to better their chances of winning the voters. Although most campaign strategists and advisors will be quick in denying the existence of sleaze research, it is u8ndeniable that most successful campaigns are just as much bent on discrediting the opposing candidate to the voters. To achieve this, rumormongering, dirt digging, innuendos, smear campaigns, and the search for silver bullets is common practice for candidates seeking election into office: though the adoption of such strategies is usually denied by the parties (Democratic Gain 12). The sleaze factor therefore works as a weapon employed to destroy the credibility of the opposing candidate to the public, and may be used by the opposition to derail the campaign progress of the opposition. It is for these reasons that sleaze factor is employed as a covert weapon to aid in the campaign strategies of political candidates. 1.3 Sleaze Factor 1.3.1 Dirty Campaign Tricks Many sleaze factors were used in presidential campaigns during the year 1988. Some presidential candidates used dirty campaign tricks for intimidating their opponents. A presidential candidate used the telephones to sabotage the campaigns of the other presidential candidates. Bob dole used the phones to defame the other presidential candidates. He even paid a substantial amount of money to a certain communication firm so that they could use their services to spread bad rumor of his presidential opponents (Burns 25). When Bob Dole was confronted about the misuse of phones, he denied and lied about his actions. 1.3.2 Money Laundering Bob Dole is involved in many scandals of money laundering for his presidential campaigns. He gets money from corporations where employees and family members contribute in envelopes and assume it is part of donations. In many organizations where Bob Dole was the head of the organization, he took the corporations money to fund his campaigns (Burns 56). Dole has been caught by many laundering scandals but he still goes on with this vice either directly or indirectly. There is a milk corporation where Dole collaborated with the managers to launder the corporation’s money. This led to the house arrest of both of them. Dole has consistently denied his involvement with getting money illegally even after strong evidence has been produced. Dole is not ready to stop money laundering because he was recently connected to a milk and telephone corporation on money laundering. Many employees were given money by corporations to go and deposit it as Dole’s presidential contributions. It is ironic because even lowly paid workers were seen contributing one thousand dollars for Dole’s campaign. Dole collaborated with corporations for receiving campaign money and in return, they would receive favors in the house. A company donated heavily on Doles campaign so that they would be allowed to import garbage from other states. 1.3.3 Ruthlessness Doles is very ruthless to his opponents because of his high desire of winning the elections. He is seen attacking his opponents from various angles to win a sit in congress (Magleby 47). A presidential candidate chose Dole as his vice because he wanted him to use his attacks to the other presidential campaigns. There is a time he attacked a presidential candidate on allegations of performing abortions. He emphasized the presidential candidate performed abortion, which is a form of killing. He made his opponent look bad to the public by saying that the act of abortion nearly killed the women. There were many posters on abortion issues placed on the public vehicles and other public places. When Dole was asked on his involvement to this issue, he denied. This made him win the reelection by a narrow margin. Most presidential candidates have used attacks as a strategy of winning campaigns instead of addressing how they will enhance development. 1.3.4 Lack of loyalty Many presidential candidates are not loyal to their supports because they find them indispensable in time of crisis. These presidential candidates find their supporters as tools to be used for making them win their objectives. Dole dumped his campaign manager after he had helped him raise a substantial amount of money (Magleby 60). Dave Owen who was his financial campaign manager helped him to raised more than a million dollars. When Dave was caught with a scandal, Dole denied any involvement with him. Dole automatically fired Dave and he did not have the audacity to tell him the bad news but instead he sent his wife. Dave was jailed for more than one year for trying to help his friend who pushed him away after he was caught with a scandal. Dave believed that he was jailed because Dole did not intervene in his arrest. Many presidential candidates are not loyal to their supporter because they main interest is win the presidential sit regardless of the circumstances. 1.3.5 Temper and Nastiness Many presidential candidates have a high temper especially when asked questions by the press. Many of the presidential usually use abusive words when being interviewed with their opponents. Dole has ridiculed many presidential candidates in their interviews by using abusive words. It is unfortunate that many presidential candidates have a problem in controlling their temper in the presence of the public. Most of this presidential candidates use nasty language to address their opponents, which is taken to be a form of weakness. Presidential candidates should give fact instead of using abusive language. 1.3.6 Giving Political Favors To Big Contributors Many presidential have a tendency of giving favors to people who contribute heavily to their campaigns. Most corporations fund campaigns for some presidential candidates so that they can be exempted from tax payment from the candidate wins the elections or some laws can be bent on their side (Magleby 88). Dole has bee frequently been associated with this scandals because he raise a lot of money from corporations. He usually promises these corporation big favors in return of offering substantial amount of money for his campaigns. 1.3.7 Infidelity Born Gary Warren Hartpence, Gary Hart was a popular and charismatic democrat, who had served as a democratic senator for the state of Colorado between the periods of 1975-1987. After announcing his intention to run again for presidency in the 1988 general elections, Gray Hart was the firm favorite to clinch the nomination of the Democratic Party and was even considered as the favorite candidate to succeed Ronald Reagan, who was not vying for re-election having served the two-year term allowed by the constitution. He began the campaign as the front-runner in the polls, which also showed him as the preferred candidate to even George Bush (McGee, Fiedler & Savage 1). However, no sooner had he started to make significant political mileage in the race to the White House, than rumours of alleged affairs began surfacing in the media (Skilling 1). Allegations started to emerge that he had an affair with a model, Dona Rice, despite assuring the public of his high moral standards to the extent of even daring the media to follow and investigate the allegations. The allegations of this affair were followed with photographs of the two together on Hart’s boat, which were published across various newspapers and magazines. The resulting effect of this sleaze was the eventual withdrawal of Gary Hart from the presidential race, allowing Dukasis to win the Democratic Party nomination for presidency and a Bush victory in the elections. 1.4 Conclusion It is almost impossible for any major election to be free of sleaze as it plays a foremost role in determining the eventual winner in the race. History has effectively shown that political sleaze plays a major role in determining the eventual results of a major political campaign. The 1988 presidential campaigns were marred with sleaze, as has been evidenced in the paper, which eventually played a huge role in influencing the campaign results. This is an indication of the role sleaze research plays in campaign strategies, and underlines its centrality in major political campaigns. Sleaze was therefore the greatest factor that influenced the outcome of the 1988 presidential campaigns, underlining the influential role it plays in political campaigns. Works Cited Burns, James. Government by the People. New York. Prentice Hall. 2001. pg 25-70. Print. Pedersen, Rasmus. Covering the Fight: The News Media and Negative Campaigning. University of Copenhagen. 2011. Web. November 3, 2011. Available at: Democratic Gain. ‘Campaign Strategy’ Campaign Strategy Manual, 2004. Pp.1-12. Web. November 3, 2011. Available at: Kathleen, Klenetsky. The sleaze factor in the Democratic Party. EIR Special Report. Volume 11, Number 27, July 17, 1984. Lafeber, Walter et al. The American Century: A History of the United States since 1941. M.E. Sharpe Inc, New York. 2008. pp. 268-277. Print. Magleby, David. Government by the People: Government by the People. New York: Prentice Hall. 2005. pg 44-90. Print. McGee, Jim, Fiedler, Tom and Savage, James. The Gary Hart Story: How It Happened. 1987. Web. November 3, 2011. Available at: < www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/Hart/hartarticle.html> Skilling, Greg. The fall and rise of Gary Hart. Examiner.com. 2010. Web. November 3, 2011. Available at: < www.examiner.com/independent-in-louisville/the-fall-and-rise-of-gary-hart> Read More