The Ethical Optimist

As I sit tonight watching the election results come in, I cannot help but feel an immense sense of pride in being an American citizen.

No matter who wins this presidency, we all win.  I’ve long been an advocate in excercising one’s right to vote.  Seeing the incredible turnout for this election was a wonderful thing.  It’s nice to see so many people standing in line to make a difference.

I’m also amazed to realize that I am a witness to history.  The fact that a woman with five children from Alaska and a man of color have an opportunity to lead this nation makes me realize that America remains a place where anything is truly possible.

As a child in the 1960’s, I remember sitting around the kitchen table in my blue collar neighborhood on Long Island arguing with my parents about busing, woman’s lib, affirmative action and the like.  Time and again, I was told…you’re too young to understand.  Sadly, my parents came from an age of prejudice and defined roles between men and women.  I remember thinking, “They’re wrong, things can change…it doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, purple, male, female or gay.”

Surprisingly, my upbringing…which consisted of an all-white neighborhood…strict Catholic family, etc.,  never influenced me in a way that made me define people by their race, religion or sex.   This, despite the fact that I never met a person of color until I reached college, or had to pay my way through college because my father thought the money would be wasted on a daughter (no kidding).

So, while I have my own personal choice to make in this election, I am amazed at the choices I am offered, and thrilled to tell my parents, “I told you so!”

I read an interesting roundup in PR Tactics & The Strategist Online titled “Can media still play independent role in electoral process?” The write up was a review of an article that appeared in the Miami Herald, written by Edward Wasserman titled, “Will the media show real spine?”

In it, Wasserman contends:

Since the nominating conventions last month, we’ve entered a different period, of casual smears and innuendos that have only the remotest bearing on the problems the electorate faces. And the news media, instead of acting as proxies for the public, have become the enablers of a discourse that seems destined to grow evermore destructive.

Forget just enabling…some media outlets have come to define a particular party. If you don’t believe me, watch FOX News cover the campaign, and then switch to NBC. If you can’t figure out which side they are on, you probably don’t follow politics. In fact, I was watching FOX yesterday when one of their anchors referred to NBC as the “National Barack Channel.” So much for objectivity. It begs the question, “Who’s watching the watchdogs?”

Moreover, Wasserman is assuming the media can play a larger role in influencing the dialog. I don’t believe that is necessarily true. Most voters with a party affiliation are going to tune into the media outlet that is more closely aligned with their views, thereby missing out on conflicting views. If one has studied the psychology of influence, they know that people will likely ignore any information, no matter how balanced, that conflicts with their beliefs or opinions.

Wasserman also feels that the media are giving far too much play to non-issues like the Palin teenage pregnancy, while ignoring more substantive issues.

The problem he fails to face is that the majority of voters pay little attention to politics until after the conventions. Sadly, most Americans don’t even understand the basic issues, let alone the intricacies of foreign policy and the budget crisis. The average American relies on their value/belief system to judge a candidate…and that’s what many of these attacks focus on. Developing messages that are simple and draw an emotional response is the key to winning.

The people crafting and disseminating these messages realize that in depth coverage will likely be ignored by most voters. Those who are informed on the issues have already made up their minds and will access credible information on their own. These cheap shots are meant to target those who won’t bother to do their homework, and frankly they will sway many voters. There is a reason propaganda works.

Frankly, I think some media outlets (like CBS) are doing a good job with their “Reality Check” series. While Wasserman contends that,

But at the same time, every expenditure of reporting time spent assessing campaign claims puts the news media once again into a reactive mode, ratifying an agenda of informational priorities that was engineered not to illuminate the electorate, but to bring some momentary partisan benefit.

I believe these reports put the negative ads into perspective for those that are most likely to be duped by them. While I would enjoy seeing more in-depth reporting, those producing the news have a fairly good handle on their audience, and will continue to write and produce (dumb down) stories for that audience. For Wasserman to think the media can play a larger role is noble, but unrealistic.

Rather than beat up the media, perhaps the discussion should center on bringing back civics classes. For those of us old enough to remember them, they were our first real tutorial on the American system of government and the role we play in it. Perhaps engaging young students in the importance of government will ultimately raise of level of discourse and participation in a way the media cannot.

Addressing Mr. Spitzer’s chances of remaining in office, a Democrat state official said, “It would be particularly difficult. It makes it harder because he’s not exactly at the peak of his popularity to begin with, and if you’re Mr. Super Clean and you’ve prosecuted other people—the only thing worse than being a sinner is people thinking you’re a hypocrite.” (Crain’s NY Business)

It’s a sad ending to a high profile career that was built on integrity and reputation.

Spitzer took great pride in rooting out high profile ne’er do wells and making an example of them.

The problem with building your castle out of white bricks is in keeping the house clean.

Believe me, I can empathize. I’m trying to build a business built on ethics and social responsibility.  To run it, however, I have to hire human beings.  Moreover, I always have to be on the watch…over myself! I have to be highly critical of my own actions, the clients I take, etc.

I find I constantly question my accountant.  I feel I need to be “squeaky” clean.  After all, how would it look if I built my business on integrity and then thought I was above it on a personal level?

That said, there’s a price to pay (in my case, higher taxes).

Like political strategist Basil Smikle said of Spitzer, “He ran on this law and order platform. He was attorney general for eight years, the sheriff of Wall Street. This works to undermine his credibility.” (Crain’s NY Business)

I’ll say.

Here’s the thing.  As many companies accused of “green washing” are finding out, saying and doing are vastly different things, and few truly walk the walk.  It’s something I’ve blogged about consistently.  As my mother used to say, “Don’t tell me what you’re going to do, do it.”

My mother, a staunch Roman Catholic, rarely saw in shades of grey.  There was always simply doing the right thing, or doing the wrong thing.  She had a thing about people who said one thing, but did another… “Do as I Say and Not As I Do.”

I wonder what Spitzer’s mother is thinking?