They operate under the comfort of anonymity, often times using fake names on blogs, emails or other modes of communication. They are fixated on “the other guy/girl”, and, in the extreme, their objectives are simple :
Destroy the other candidate,
Humiliate him/her,
Keep kicking to ensure he/she stays down- at least until the election is held.
Leave no evidence
This is the work of a brand of political operative performing “opposition research”. These people are often referred to as “Oppo men” or “Oppo women”. Their methods vary depending on their scruples or lack thereof.
Opposition research can take many forms. It can take the form, for example, of scouring public records, emails, blog postings and web pages to find anything that could potentially embarrass the targeted candidate, or anything that could be “spun” so that it appears as something other than what it is.
Tactics can be more sinister, including setting people up, fabricating rumours, attacking people online, hacking web sites or using any tactic that just might accomplish the objectives.
Often times the candidate who the “Oppo man” or “Oppo woman” is working for, will distance himself or herself from the operations of “oppo work”, in the interest of plausible deniability. In this mode, if the “oppo man” or “oppo woman’s” tactics are discovered and exposed, the candidate who the “oppo man” or “oppo woman” is working for can claim that he or she had no idea that the activity was going on, and certainly doesn’t condone it.
Opposition research was well demonstrated by James Carville, the American politico who worked on Bill Clinton’s campaign by deploying a “war room” style of disseminating, reacting to and manipulating information and perceptions. Not all “oppo men or women” are unscrupulous and not all candidates use opposition research in sinister ways. In fact, when done well, it can be quite useful and effective.
Some argue that this type of research is necessary in that the public has a right to know as much as they can about the candidate’s past and present conduct and character. Others argue that these activities amount to dirty politics and hurtful, mean-spirited tactics.
What do you think? Necessary evil or dirty politics? Does this play out in Hamilton politics? When does this type of “research” cross the line?
Blog Policy Note: Bad language, name calling or other inappropriate posts will not be tolerated. Posts of this nature will not be edited. Rather, they will not be posted. Please keep your comments respectful.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
3 comments:
Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.
Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Being the only Lobbyist listed on the Hamilton Lobbyist Registry has given me the opportunity to do lots and lots of research in an open and transparent way.
ReplyDeleteI was also given a tour of the Conservatives war room when I did a press conference for child-care on Parliament Hill a number of years ago with MP Jason Kenney and MP Rona Ambrose when my disabled son Logan was alive and kicking.
Logan passed away three years ago, may he rest in peace.
Unfortunately, nothing dies on the Internet and many Candidates have been felled by their own words, or "framed" in a way they don't want.
Politics is a blood sport, even local politics, as we have seen.
Democracy is meant to bring about ideas about how best to govern society; at the local level, it manifests in one person, rather than a party brand as in provincial or federal politics. Candidates that have the courage to put themselves and their vision for local society forward should be respected for their opinions and abide by the public's decision as to who they think should lead them.
ReplyDeleteI think that candidates who engage in negative ads take away from this most basic form of democracy that so many have fought and died to preserve. Attacking a person's character, opinion, past action etc. and skewing it across the media is hurtful not only to the candidate but also takes away a potentially good leader for society. If you're going to attack something, attack the person's idea, not their dress or what they did in high school or university. This detracts from real issues that affect the everday lives of the people these politicians are supposed to be serving. Did he or she get in trouble once? Who cares - what's their vision for improving infrastructure/health care/economy NOW? Of course I see the problems of some characters - I wouldn't want a convicted felon for embezzlement running my city. But let's have some common sense (and decency - both in short supply, it seems) when it comes to what is being attacked or judged.
Politics, at any level, is what people make of it. If people go in thinking it is a blood sport, then they will act accordingly. The behaviour I see in the House of Commons (federal and provincial) and in campaign ads by politicians is exactly the reason why people are turned off by politics and why people don't come out to vote; these politicians appear as nothing but little children in grown-up suits serving their own interests. The raucous antics during question period are really the only thing people see or hear about (besides scandals) and negative ads only further the negative perception people have against politicians in general.
Speaking of children, this leads to my conclusion: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all. I'm pretty sure that's something everyone teaches their kids at some point and I see no reason why this should not be applied to politics.
Do the people really have a say in anything? I mean really think about it, what is democracy? What is the public good?
ReplyDeleteIf one goes back through history and looks at events, it is always the same thing, a struggle, a battle, a war, strive, poverty, illness, injustice, inequality.
These things have not changed, there is only the illusion that is has. I would prefer that someone actually stood up for the morals, ethics, principles. There are very few that do and usually those voices are silenced.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
For change to happen, all the voices must be given equal weight, to be treated fairly, with justice and equality. Otherwise they are only words and those words are meaningless.