Letter to the Editor: Response to Jim Dale and Karl Knudson

(Jonathon Struve of Decorah has submitted this Letter to the Editor):

"With rights come responsibility, and when you attach your name to your words, you take ownership of that expression.  Karl Knudson's recent letter leans heavily on hyperbole and an exaggerated sense of the terrible consequences associated with regulating campaign ads.  He sees this type of regulation an infringement of free speech and a step down the path of the looming threat of entirely regulated expression (a logical fallacy otherwise known as the slippery slope). 

However, I would also remind Karl that Jim never said precisely that free speech should be regulated, merely that campaign literature and ads have become embarrassingly juvenile as they've found that emotional appeals have greater impact and are a lot less work than having any positions of actual substance.  We are a politics of the catch phrase and the threatening music, of the "good" candidate in vibrant beautiful color, and the "bad" candidate presented in sinister red or black and white, preferably with the most threatening or ugliest possible expression on his or her face.  The idea isn't that free speech be regulated per se, but merely a complaint of the proliferation of material in this election cycle, which is probably in part the result of the elimination of restrictions on political campaign giving and candidate advocacy on the part of PACs and other organizations due to Citizens United.

At the same time, Jim Dale's letter does seem to give the Citizens United decision too much credit for the ugly rhetoric and the embarrassingly juvenile and incendiary mailings many of us receive on a daily basis that are not worth the ink or the postage that brings them to our doors.  In some sense, Karl is right, we should restrict expression.  However, I would also argue that by opening the floodgates to funding for campaigns and advertising, we do run the danger of adding corruption to our democratic process, not diminishing it, as only those with the greatest resources stand a chance to become elected, even to the point where elections are essentially bought through the influence of money from any number of sources.

Both writers tiptoe around what is at the heart of what I think insults and upsets the voters, which is the way in which there is no integrity in these expressions of free speech and the way in which campaigns are run; there is no responsibility taken for saying any number of incendiary comments, taking any quote out of context, or presenting any candidate as foul and even evil.  The rhetoric only serves to play into people's fears, rather than make any logical appeal to truth.  The ads I've seen are mostly bankrupt of any real substance, but rich in deception and fear mongering.

Now, I agree we must always tread carefully when it comes to regulating expression and speech in any way.  But, I think that we ought to hold ourselves to a much higher standard than the absolute garbage I've seen this election cycle.  Now, like Karl, I might choose stand up and defend garbage, but I won't do that. I demand better than garbage, and it's time that more people did. 

The problem with perpetuating lies is that we end up with a dysfunctional society where truth becomes relative and the only winners are those whose versions of "truth" are most convincing or the least threatening, even if any particular version of "truth" is really based on lies.  Though the speech of those campaign ads may well be protected, the lies and deception that fills the airwaves and clogs our mailboxes is a travesty and a mockery of the rights that we enjoy in this country and cheapens values I would hope most of us hold dear...ideas like honesty, integrity, kindness, and treating others with respect.  The ads and those responsible for them insult the very idea of free speech, for they use the amendment as a shield to perpetuate their "opinions" and "facts" but mock the idea of truth and integrity that must necessarily be a part of a functioning democracy and an expectation for our citizens, particularly for those who aspire to be our representatives. 

The other thing that I think we find most upsetting is the sheer amount of money spent on these political campaigns which produce nothing worthwhile and do no demonstrative good for society. 

At the same time, dismayed as I am over the state of our election campaigns and the way they play fast and loose with the responsibilities associated with our right to free speech, I don't necessarily think that we are living in a time of unprecedented deceit and lack of integrity.  After all, these words can be found in a campaign song from the 19th century:  "The candidate's a dodger, yes a well known dodger, yes, the candidate's a dodger, yes, and I'm a dodger too.  He'll meet you and treat you and ask your for your vote, but look out, boys, he's a dodging for your note."  Perhaps we aren't experiencing anything new after all, and it's all garbage in, garbage out.

After that pessimistic rant, only we have the power to decide what we demand from our politicians, and we must take responsibility to use our own power of expression to let candidates, PACs and others know of our distaste for the methods used to dupe the public.  We must demand substance over style, and integrity over selling out in order to win. That is perhaps not the fastest way to effect change, but we can get it done if we demand it loudly enough and often enough.  Remember to vote this election."