Board of Contributors: Getting politics out of the gutter Board of Contributors: Getting politics out of the gutter (October 27, 2004)

by Gordon Lewin

Serving on a school board must be a thankless job, an old friend of mine recently commented.

"No." I paused for a second. "Actually, people are always thanking me."

Sure, there were times when I wished I had missed a difficult meeting. I have experienced first-hand that, "You can't please all the people all of the time."

Yet I have been fortunate to participate in school governance where civility has reigned and rudeness and disrespect have been the exception.

When elected officials act professionally -- discussing issues and solving problems -- it radiates through the institution. Decisions are better. Civility is contagious. The big winners, in schools, are the children. Actually, we all win.

Overall, school governance is looking pretty good right now throughout the Peninsula. School-board elections are conducted with textbook politeness. Perhaps it has to do with the broad community consensus and shared value that recognizes the importance of public education. And perhaps it has something to do with the rampant idealism that seems to be a side effect of focusing on the needs of children.

Yet as we all know, politics is not always civil. As election day nears, we are witnessing our presidential candidates trash each other to the point where voters feel they are choosing "the lesser of two evils." Some simply tune out and don't vote.

Campaigns raise many ethical questions. What is a legitimate negative attack? Is it ever appropriate to go beyond discussing one's own views and experience?

I think it is legitimate to criticize an opponent so long as it is done accurately and fairly, without misrepresentation or exaggeration. If Candidate X has publicly advocated legalizing marijuana, it is perfectly appropriate for Candidate Y to criticize that position.

Alternatively, what if Candidate Q, an attorney, has represented an individual arrested for selling marijuana? Image an attack ad: "Candidate Q is the lawyer of drug dealers. Keep our schools drug free!" That's over the top.

The damage of attack ads is that they corrode and polarize the political process. Elected officials, believe it or not, are human beings with feelings. Most of us have the ability to work with those whom we disagree. But when a candidate has been the victim of a smear campaign, it's hard to not hold a personal grudge after the election is over. Partisan bitterness is rooted in unfair attacks, making compromise difficult when it is time to govern. We as a community are the losers.

Even worse, perhaps, the extreme attack ads and smear campaigns increase the level of public cynicism -- a growing cancer on the democratic process.

Why do candidates use attack ads? They work.

How about staying above the fray? Mike Dukakis tried that. He made a conscious decision during his Presidential campaign against the elder George Bush not to respond to attacks. He felt he could talk about the issues and the public would reward civic-minded behavior.

The lesson learned is to always strike back. An attacked candidate is under severe pressure to counter-attack. That's why politics is now, more than ever, in the gutter.

It does not have to be this way. Locally, we have punished candidates who engage in negative attacks. In our State Senate primary last spring, Ted Lempert hurt his own efforts when he attacked Assemblyman Joe Simitian for "selling out" public schools -- a laughably false charge. I was surprised to see it because Lempertis smart and a real gentleman. I assume that his political consultants told him that he needed to destroy his opponent's reputation. He took the bait. It turned out to be a poison pill.

Simitian found a way to respond without letting his own campaign fall into the gutter. He only attacked the attack ads. Joe's response should be seen as a model for other candidates -- it was successful. Heads up, you cynical consultants!

Since government can't regulate free speech, it's really up to us voters to improve the political climate. We need to be more conscious of what motivates candidates and their consultants. Attack ads should be seen for what they are -- paid propaganda.

We should be particularly suspicious of attacks in the last week of a campaign. Those attacks are timed precisely to leave a last-minute impression without giving the targeted candidate time to respond.

Our schools also can play a role in changing the political dynamic. High school government classes should include critical analyses of political advertising to help students become better decision-makers as they reach voting age.

What if we, as a community, "just say no" to smear campaigns and negative attack ads? What if we use a "litmus test" for civility when we vote? You can be sure that the candidates and their political consultants will take notice. Over time, it will make a difference locally and set an example for others to follow.

Gordon Lewin is a Trustee of the Sequoia Union High School District and a former member the Menlo Park Elementary School District board. He can be e-mailed at Gordon992@comcast.net.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.