Collegiate Times

As of today, there are exactly 19 days left until Nov. 4, 2008 -- Election Day, or as I like to call it, the day that will usher in heaven or hell. On that day, millions of Americans will wake up, go about their daily activities, and somewhere in between their already hectic schedules, find time to vote for the next president of the United States.

We've had voter drives, campaign rallies, demonstrations, grassroots speeches and general merriment all around.

But now as we enter the home stretch of the campaign, things are turning ugly. People are accusing Joe Biden of having received Botox, Sarah Palin of abusing gubernatorial power in the firing of Walt Monegan, John McCain of having an affair with a female lobbyist and Barack Obama of being a Muslim. Has SNL ever had this much raw material to work with?

Whatever happened to the good old debate of a candidate's worthiness based solely upon their individual stance on the issues? When did a candidate's personal experiences, actions and mistakes in their private lives become the basis for determining their capability? Does it really matter whether a candidate is Muslim, Jewish or Catholic? What politician doesn't have some small "scandal" in his closet?

We as Americans are obsessed with the ethics of our politicians. And to be clear, I mean we are concerned with private ethics, not public ethics. What is the difference? Bill Clinton receiving oral sex outside of marriage is a private ethical decision. Ronald Reagan's handling of the Iran-Contra affair is a public ethical decision. Public ethical decisions that stem from a president acting within his official capacity have an impact on the general public of the United States as a whole. Private choices a president makes regarding his personal life outside of his political office do not affect the general public.

In a recent project for a class, I was part of a survey team that asked questions regarding perceptions of morality and ethics within politicians. We asked the participants to tell us whether politicians would be hindered in the success of their careers if politicians maintained a high ethical standard -- that is to say success in Washington was dependent upon breaking ethical codes in some situations. The answers were very qualifying in nature or absent altogether.

I think this question raises a very uncomfortable idea -- can a politician succeed without having to justify his actions with Machiavellian principles here and there? I think the lack of answers we received implies that we as voters believe that most politicians are unethical at times. In fact, we expect them to be if they are perceived as powerful officials because who can we hold up as an example of a politician who has never done something slightly devious in order to gain one thing or another?

I guess I have to wonder at the constant barrage of mudslinging being done by both political campaigns as we wind down election season. As voters, I think many of us expect all politicians to be "dirty" at some time or another in their careers. Do they honestly think that by calling attention to their opponent's flaws and scandals we won't see their own dirty laundry?

Heads up, Obama, and you, too, McCain: We the general public find you both to be duplicitous and less than candid on a lot of issues just because it is in our nature to believe you don't always measure up to the high ethics you both tout, because at the end of the day, you're both career politicians.

I believe both Obama and McCain would be better served not by name-calling and finger-pointing at the other over personal ethics but rather by focusing on the flaws within each other's platforms. (Trust me, there's enough there to keep them busy for the next 18 weeks, let alone the next 18 days.)  

Maybe if they focus on the important issues, the candidates will, in turn, force us to think about real issues instead of gossip when we cast our ballots on Nov. 4.