ShareThis Page
Theater of democracy |

Theater of democracy

Salena Zito
| Sunday, April 9, 2006 12:00 a.m

With political campaigning comes mud, lots of mud. Enough mud to fill a sports stadium for a monster-truck pull.

Below-the-belt politicking is not just a present-day phenomenon. Neither is it limited to big-boy presidential elections such as, say, Grover Cleveland’s scandal-laced presidential campaign.

Even lowly local special elections are not immune to spectacular Shakespearean moments.

One such campaign is brewing in Pittsburgh’s suburbs — a special election to be held Tuesday to replace the poster child of theatrical political scandal, Jeff Habay. Habay’s lists of infractions are the butt of many jokes in his district, making most voters resolute in distancing themselves from further political shenanigans.

Or so they hoped.

In the race for the 30th Legislative District, booze and sex are at the forefront. In the back seat are real issues.

Mike Dolan of Shaler and Shawn Flaherty of Fox Chapel are the gladiators in this duel — Dolan on the right, Flaherty on the left. Had Flaherty not drawn first blood, their race might have been apropos of brand-name politics and nothing else.

But this is a Republican-rich suburb and Flaherty knew he could not win by name recognition alone. So he did his best re-creation of the Bill-Clinton-on-Barbara-Walters moment. Five seconds after admitting to an affair and subsequent out-of-wedlock child, he blamed his opponent for bringing the matter to the public’s attention and then called a news conference to demand a “clean” campaign.

Give the guy an A-plus for tactics. In a borderline-brilliant move, he spread a negative about himself, blamed it on his opponent, then put up an empty no-mudslinging pledge.

Now everyone is paying attention.

Tack on the dug-up college underage drinking citations on Dolan and Flaherty’s leading in mudslinging one-upmanship.

At first blush, it makes a spectator wonder why politics always has to come down to this.

But at second blush, you start to wonder: Would voters pay attention otherwise?

Office water-cooler conversations typically aren’t about property taxes, health care and tort reform. Instead, we opine about “24” and “American Idol,” or if Brad and Angelina are still “just” friends.

As a society, we expect to be stimulated all of the time. Public issues make our eyes glaze over. But bring up some out-of-wedlock frolicking or some underage drinking at Penn State and we suddenly refocus.

Do we, in fact, need our political campaigns to be sexed-up?

Think about it: Many of us are of a generation that was weaned on MTV. We want entertainment and we want it to be served up in 30-second intervals. Hence, the half-minute campaign commercials that spew bile faster than Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney pulling out her race card.

Is this what our Founding Fathers had in mind• Maybe — they loved theater and politics, risked their lives for the latter and, yes, slung some pretty slimy mud of their own on occasion.

But politics gives birth to theater, which breathes life into politics.

The Dolan-Flaherty race is a microcosm of elections as a whole. Almost every race in this country, from dogcatcher to president, has drama — real or make-believe — tacked on for good measure. The wise voter remembers that man’s motives are always secondary to his accomplishments.

Casting our vote is an honor and a privilege. If we need a little foreplay to get us to do it, well, so be it. Political campaigns are nothing more than democracy’s theater.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.