Dirty laundry exposes politicians, voters

It has been said that folks in Louisiana serve up politics the same way we do our rice – dirty.

The airing of messy laundry is nothing new here in the battle for public office. After all, this is the state of such famed and controversial figures as Huey Long.

As we approach the mid-term elections of 2010, the long-standing tradition of putting out as much trash on an opponent as possible appears alive and well on both the local and national stages.

Primaries for Louisiana’s Third Congressional District proved a typical example. By the time Republican candidates Hunt Downer and Jeff Landry finished with one another, about the only thing left to be revealed is which one really does have the horns and tail.

In the meantime, Democrat Ravi Sangisetty is probably taking notes to develop his own strategy of telling on his adversary.

Exposing youthful indiscretions, bad business decisions, curious career changes or, the most recently popular, misspoken statements is nothing new in the sport of politics.

In the presidential campaign of 1800, Thomas Jefferson hired writer James Callendar to dig up dirt on then-President John Adams. Among the character slamming claims against Adams was that he lacked the firmness to be a man or the gentleness to be a woman. A more contemporary translation would reveal that Adams was being called a sissy boy.

In 1828, Andrew Jackson was accused of various offenses including having a very fat wife.

In 1876, a political rumor was spread that Rutherford B. Hayes shot his own mother during a fit of rage.

If television were around in the mid-19th century, it is very unlikely that Abraham Lincoln would have been elected. Our modern, appearance-biased society would have characteristically disqualified him on looks alone.

Many of us remember our parents being warned during the campaign of 1964 that if Barry Goldwater were elected president instead of keeping Lyndon Johnson in the White House, the United States would be sure to go to war in Vietnam. Those of us who soon came of age during that period know all too well the results.

The thing about political mudslinging is that every professional poll indicates that the general public does not like it. And no statistics could be found suggesting airing an opponent’s dirty laundry, shortcomings or rumored negative traits have any positive result for the mudslinger.

Voters insist that the airing of dirty laundry and slinging of mud is repulsive. Yet politicians continue to do it. Why? Because voters pay attention to it. It’s called marketing.

Yet, it does make one wonder if all any candidate can do is slam an opponent, what does the mudsling candidate not have to offer.