Why Are US Voters So Nasty About Candidates

In a very recent forum post one Hubber, who has been involved in work in politics, vented about how nasty it is that perfectly nice people running for office face so many rotten remarks and criticism. She talked about nice the people she had met were and expressed dismay at much of the negativity directed at them. I've decided to write the following in response to that post.

One of the problems in that, unless people have serious personality problems, most people are nice, polite, friendly, and all those things. Most love their families. This includes people who run for office. So everyone around them thinks, "Hey, he's so nice." Some people are nicer than others. Sometimes people confuse being personable with being genuinely kind/nice. In other words, most people are, or at least seem, nice. That means that most people who run for office will be seen as "nice" by those who know them. The trouble is politics isn't nice. So, that's one one thing.

The other thing is that being even genuinely nice as a person doesn't make someone qualified/worthy of office. Yes, it's rough, but they know that going in. In fact, one of the reasons some of the most qualified people of high integrity don't run is that they are not willing to put their families through that, and they aren't willing to tell people what they want to hear (lie) just to get elected. So people who do run know what they're getting into and have enough of the personality to take all the crap that goes with it. They know they have to lie and be phony to fool enough people to get into office. Maybe they don't like it, but they're not bothered enough by it not to do it.

People who think they're the ones who should/could be in the position to decide to send other mothers' children into war; or those who think they should have some say in whether they take a third or a half of someone's income in taxes, are expecting a lot of trust from the voters. Voters are going to want to size up people's judgment, which means that a lot of people are going to think you aren't the brightest bulb in the bunch if you bring your infant into a giant crowd of germy people. If you're presuming to run for an office that could potentially put you in the position of deciding whether to put my sons' lives in danger, I want to see evidence that you have some good judgment. If I see too many signs that you have bad judgment in your own life, and with your own kids, I'm going to get really worried - and I just may start yelling about what an idiot you look like to me (because I don't want anyone else voting for you either). If you'd enter yourself in a beauty pageant and be able to strut around on stage in a bathing suit, I'm thinking you're not like all the women who would find that a little embarrassing and demeaning. A lot of people would prefer to have someone with a healthy amount of the reticence that's a sign of a certain kind of thinking to potentially decide whose kids get sent to some horrible war zone.

Yes, it's tough on these people; and yes, we judge on the small things we see them do - not just what they say or how great a smile they plaster on. They're asking to have some say in our lives and in the direction of our country. Anyone who fully understands the potential ramifications of that knows that these people are asking a lot.

Some of biggest, "smiliest", politicians in the world are personable enough that most people who know them well would say they're "nice". Some are "nice" - only they cheat on their spouse. Some are "nice" - only they "made a bad judgment" and found themselves charged with corruption. Other are "nice" - but they have children who will grow up with "issues" because their parent "wasn't around often enough". Then there are those who are "nice" and who truly believe that starting, staying in, a war is the only right thing to do. There's more to character and judgment than how nice someone is. Nobody knows what decisions someone will have to make once they are in office. All voters can do is hope to elect someone who shows enough signs of character, morality, good judgement, common sense, and intelligence to make the wisest decision possible. Since we can't size people up based on their stand on every single potential decision they'll ever have to make, we have to go past "issues thinking" and size them up based on the sense we get of all those other things mentioned.

So then what happens? Someone like me will be watching a candidate on television and notice some of the smaller things that give me a reading on the person's judgment. I may notice that "a certain person" has chosen to bring an infant into a large crowd. Young infants who pick up infections can become dangerously ill. (I lost a 20-month-old nephew to a relatively common infection.) I may notice that a little girl is allowed to carry a baby who appears a little too heavy for her to carry. I wonder why any mother would risk letting a small child drop the baby. I may notice that your seven-year-old is smoothing the hair of her baby brother with spit, and I think of how disgusting a thing that is and how my own seven-year-old daughter would have known better. I may wonder if these children have a mother who puts spit on their hair, or who "washes" their face with a spit-moistened tissue; and I may think this is a parent who has no understanding of contamination or of respect for one's child. (Who wants spit on their head or face?)

Later, I may notice the candidate/mother doesn't seem to hold her baby in the way that most mothers hold theirs. It may look to me as if this person is unaware of a certain type of affection/closeness with which most mothers hold their infant. To me, this signifies a lack of sufficient understanding of human development and nurturing; and one type of intellligence I'm looking for is the type that includes a solid understanding of human nature and people. Then I may learn that the candidate hunts for sport, and I think of how that strikes me as having little respect for life or for the creatures some who say they believe in a Creator sees as "God's creatures". Then I may see the candidate in a YouTube video, taking part in some weird religious ceremony that is not one of the more common ceremonies of more mainstream religions. It occurs to me that I, personally, would not be willing to set foot into some non-mainstream religious ceremony - let alone even pretend to be taking part in it. If I see a candidate heading into a Methodist Church on Sunday I don't think twice about. The same applies to synagogues and any other mainstream church.

The point is that all these little things start to add up to paint a picture, and that picture (at least to some people like me) starts to look like a person who isn't quite a careful with one's own baby as some people think she should be, someone who doesn't value life as much as some think she should; and someone who either participates in, or pretends to participate, a non-mainstream religion's ceremonies. I then think about how this person wants to hold an office that could potentially put her in the position of deciding whether my sons or daughter go to war. I start to get really scared - if not for me, then for other parents and other people's sons and daughters.

Suppose we throw in that the candidate's own son serves in Iraq. He should be respected for his service, but voters may start to wonder whether this young man was raised with the idea that entering the military is what all young people should do. Then again, sometimes young people enter the military rather than heading for college. One may begin to wonder whether the son has been raised to think the military is more important than college. All I, and a lot of other mothers of grown sons and daughters, know is that some people may think, "What's good enough for my son is good enough for everybody else's." I don't want my sons or daughter, or any other mother's, sent into a war about which I'm not very sure. Do I think less of a mother whose son enters the military? Certainly not. Still, it isn't what I want for my own sons or daughter, and that's enough to cause me concern.

So, the picture gets painted from the seemingly irrelevant aspects of a candidate's life; and, fair or not, people may start to form the opinion that one candidate or another is presuming to expect to hold an office for which s/he is not qualified/worthy. Much of the time, when people start believing someone who wants to be trusted with an elected office is asking for trust for which s/he seems unworthy, people can start to resent such "audacity". After all, the world is full of voters who know they're reasonably intelligent and capable and yet also believe they would not be qualified to take on some public offices. It's natural that some of those people wonder what kind of ego makes someone they see as less qualified believe s/he is worthy of the office.

And so, fear and anger build - and people become nastier and nastier. When all is said and done, most people are willing to fight, in their own way, for their own country. Of course, a reality is that no matter who someone is there will always be a whole group of people who don't like a lot of the seemingly irrelevant things about them. Still, it is the non-campaign-related things that set off alarm bells, depending on what they are and who learns about/observes them.

The candidate who has a son who is said to have hanged a dog as a young child makes SOME voters wonder if parenting played a role in such disturbed behavior in a young kid. The candidate said to use drugs as a young person may cause those who got through youth without ever wanting to use drugs to wonder about his judgment. The one who had an affair may cause some people to wonder what's so difficult about simply "behaving" until one has retired from politics. Do such people have no ability to control themselves, or do they just think it isn't a big deal? Either way, many voters will not be impressed. The candidate who makes it a point of changing his style of clothes, in order to convince voters he's whatever he thinks they want him to be, angers voters who prefer someone to be more authentic. That's the thing: People want "authentic", but they also want "authentically capable, of high character, of high intelligence, of high common sense, and of good judgement.

Some voters are easily fooled by a great smile and attractive appearance. Maybe those who are not expect too much of candidates. Maybe it's not fair. Still, you know what? If voters don't happen to get a good reading from a lot of those smaller aspects of a candidate's life/personality, there's a good chance that's because people read other people in ways that go deeper than just listening to clever lines in a speech, or measuring the intensity of a smile. As soon as people start to get the sense that someone isn't qualified or worthy, they start to get nasty. It's sometimes all just a matter of how many people get a "bad reading" from any candidate.

Another thing that contributes to the level of voter anger and nastiness is that people are just sick of being the choice between two candidates they don't particularly think are right for the job. Most elections involve electing the lesser of two evils, unless, of course, a candidate manages to dazzle enough people to the point that they'll overlook a lot of the stuff they'd otherwise dislike.

This last election was about who was new and different, who was experienced, who had questionable behaviors in their background, and who had the best smile. It was also about which party could make the most history in their offerings of candidates. Perhaps more than any other campaign in the lifetimes of even the eldest citizens, this last campaign was a circus. Voters were angry, so - yes - voters were nasty. That's what happens when people feel their choice is between a few people (who may be perfectly nice people) who aren't qualified to hold high office in the United States.

It's unfortunate that an election with the historical significance this recent one had was turned into the circus it was. An election that should have been of so much more substance and dignity was, instead, a mind-boggling whir of superficiality. It shouldn't be any wonder that so many voters were nasty and angry.

Is it wrong for people to go with their human instincts and concerns, and judge any candidate based on the seemingly insignificant aspects of their life and personalities?  I'm not sure it is.  What else do we have to go on?  Certainly not any candidate's words, and hopefully not any candidate's dazzling smile.