Here in North Carolina, few democrats expect Bill Faison and Jerry Meek will ever proactively return to civil discourse as President Obama urged. Case in point: Faison's statewide teleconference on Tuesday, January 11th. During that teleconference Faison who is running for Chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party launched into a blanket smear campaign disparaging his opponent, front-runner David Parker.
Meek, a former NCDP chair quickly recruited Faison upon learning of Parker's candidacy in December 2010. Meek has since taken a very active role in Faison's campaign and this blanket smear campaign has Meek's fingerprints all over it. Faison and Meek are collaborating to discredit Parker's record and influence the state party's 800-member executive committee to elect Faison instead. This is a prime example of the anti-social behavior that defines party in-fighting and is just another continuation of the uncivil political discourse President Obama spoke out against during Wednesday night's memorial service.
It took a little research to get the dirt on mudslinging, how it's done and why some people choose to do it. It's best defined as a....
Smear Campaign: (noun, idiom) An effort to damage or call into question somebody's reputation, by propounding negative propaganda.
Here's are the basic elements to creating your garden-variety smear campaign:
Who: A weaker candidate will use a smear campaign to distract and confuse voters about the opponent's reputation. Smears are considered to be a low, disingenuous and unethical form of discourse.
What: A smear is a simple attempt to undermine the opponent's credibility. A smear campaign is multiple attempts to ruin another's reputation. The #1 tactic is fabricating an alternative record for the opponent and filling it with distortions, half-truths or even outright lies, and unverifiable rumours, better known as baseless gossip.
How: In politics a "blanket smear campaign" takes multiple issues that don't really have any direct connection to each other and compiles them into talking points to blanket the opponent in negative statements. The goal is to get people to question the target's ethics, capabilities and accomplishments.
When the facts contradict the smears, the attacker will ignore them and shift gears to statements that cannot be easily refuted and referencing "witnesses" or people from the target's past to sound more credible and appear to be "common knowledge." When the target disputes this alternative record, the attacker will claim "where there's smoke, there's fire" to give the impression there must be some truth among the multiple smears.
Caveat: "Don't blink and don't blush." An attacker must stick to his guns when publicly busted for smearing his opponent. He will then need to rely on being nebulous and evasive when pushed to produce evidence or name names alluded to in the smears.
Caveat: "Don't blink and don't blush." An attacker must stick to his guns when publicly busted for smearing his opponent. He will then need to rely on being nebulous and evasive when pushed to produce evidence or name names alluded to in the smears.
When: The best timing for using smear tactics is whenever an opponent is presenting an effective argument, case or campaign. Trial lawyers know this tactic is extremely effective in undermining a witness's credibility.
Why: Political smear campaigns, mud slinging, whatever you want to call it, all boils down to deliberate attempts to malign another's reputation. The motives for engaging in smear tactics are usually personal, financial or revenge.
Most importantly, a smear campaign requires enlisting stupid people to support and perpetuate it. You know the type. People who enjoy besmirching others.
Most importantly, a smear campaign requires enlisting stupid people to support and perpetuate it. You know the type. People who enjoy besmirching others.
That brings us full-circle to Bill Faison, a trial attorney selling his soul (and integrity) to win the state party chair election on Saturday, January 29, 2011. Now that you know how a smear campaign works, we'll detail the differences between Parker and Faison and how they're conducting their campaigns.
Read Part 2's follow-up article here that reveals Faison's unfounded attacks and specific smears with links to irrefutable facts and evidence we located online and that anyone can veri-google. This fact-check article is a must read for anyone voting in the NCDP's January 29th party election in Raleigh.
Bookmark NCDPpolitics to find out the inside story of NCDP's back-room politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment