A political candidate is put in charge of serving the American people, as well as managing and representing the country. If the candidate is using information in very self-aggrandizing ways (such as subtle mudslinging at political opponents), this is heavily unethical for many reasons.
The American people likely elected the candidate because he projected an image of honesty and family values in campaign advertising. Slanting information is dishonest, in direct opposition to those family values that candidates often market, but seldom show in their political or personal lives except for those campaign speeches or news sound bites. When a candidate bashes his political opponents and exaggerates (or overplays) his own victories, the American people become disappointed and distrustful of that particular candidate, and even of his political affiliation. A candidate who misused facts to get votes has swindled them.
Additionally, many people who live in other countries look up to America. When they learn that a candidate slanted information, this may give the wrong impression of America to other countries’ ambassadors and diplomats, as well as to the citizens. Slanting information is unethical because it makes a political candidate’s country and position look bad or corrupt. It may also desensitize the candidate himself to more acts of dishonesty in the personal and public spheres, because, they rationalize, “it’s just doing business; one lie can’t hurt.” This adds to the suspicions of corruption that many people already held regarding the political sphere.
We can watch candidates’ speeches and notice emotive language aimed at opponents and their political parties. Emotive language can also be applied to the candidates themselves; they might not want to talk much about their own deep insecurities or failings on TV. They might exaggerate their own victories and greatest strengths and passions. They can do this even in a subtle way, through tone of voice or the way they edited the visuals. Frequently, attack ads produced during candidates' campaigns transition between scenes with ominous video editing effects to insinuate that the other candidate is not fit for their public service. Advertising need not involve dramatic mudslinging to count as a political smear campaign. Therefore, we must take the candidate’s own policies and interests into account, and compare and contrast these with the policies of that candidate’s political opponent when evaluating election choices.
The candidate who misrepresents information deliberately should face some sort of punishment, as he or she has disappointed and taken advantage of voters, wasted resources, and even brought a bad impression of America to other countries. Some sort of punishment would follow this offense. The consequences he or she faces may or may not change my opinion of him or her as a candidate, and his or her attitude toward such consequences may or may not change my opinion, either. If a candidate who misrepresented information handles his or her punishment gracefully, that is, does not sweep scandals under the rug or try to change the subject to avoid talking about it on TV, this may give the average citizen a better opinion of that candidate. Otherwise, the general public would consistently have a negative opinion of that candidate.
Learn about egregious examples of stretching the truth. Join the PJ Media VIP membership today. Use promo code FIGHT to join it at 60% off.
