Perhaps, it is simply that they have been on the campaign trail longer, but it seems to me that the PNM's platform speakers are focussing more on personal insults that attacking the other side on any real issues. I hope, when the UNC gets into full flight, they do not follow in like fashion and contribute to the degeneration of this election campaign. In their St Augustine meeting, PNM Minister and MP, Christine Kangaloo, focussed her attacks on various UNC figures, referring to them as snakes and other more vivid unpleasant creatures. In another meeting, the usually mild Minister Amery Browne was heard describing a UNC Senator as a sepulchre of dead bones. Then last week, Minister Marlene McDonald, in full flight, choose to term some UNC members as "misfits" and "lunatics."
Is this to be the level of these ministers' contribution? I was appalled when I heard the clips on the radio and read them in the newspaper. I could not believe that people who consider themselves intelligent had to resort to such crude tactics. Good platform speakers are known not merely for their loud voices (a microphone can take care of that), but for their wit and quick ripostes. So far, this has been lacking from what I have seen of the campaign trail. Apparently, many prospective candidates appear to be of the view that personal insults will do the job. They seem not to grasp that the only persons with whom they can hold sway with such tactics are the already converted. Naturally, when they preach to the converted in this fashion, the latter will respond with support.
But what about the undecided, the shifting vote–those who make the difference in the closely-fought contests? Will they be persuaded to vote for whoever can come up with the vilest names? I think not. I recall being taught, years ago, that one of the ways that speakers who have faulty arguments try to persuade you to their way of thinking is through "argumentum ad hominum." The idea is to attack the person, instead of trying to respond to their argument with facts and reason; divert attention by making personal attacks. There are many issues that can arise in these elections and many matters that may reasonably be raised as to the credibility of various candidates (or prospective candidates). What is not acceptable, however, is to decry persons for their physical shortcomings.
The fact that a person is fat should not be made an election joke or that she/he may be thought to be ugly. Similarly, a physical defect is not a matter for joke or scorn. In fact, I would have more admiration for someone who was able to achieve despite these defects, physical or otherwise. I also think it was particularly unfortunate that Minister McDonald should describe anyone as a "lunatic" on a public platform. The minister, in her capacity as such, is an exemplar, and ought to know that not only is the term politically incorrect, but could be regarded as insulting to our mentally-challenged population. Bearing in mind this type of illness is one that carries with it a stigma for life, it is not something to be disparaged in this fashion. It might be argued that the intention was not to denigrate mentally-challenged persons, but why use the term at all?
It is also useful to bear in mind that when one resorts to certain tactics, it is a sign of desperation. The rational populace in T&T, to my mind, have shown over the years that they do not appreciate personal attacks that have nothing to do with anything. Last election, I recall an attempt was made to dub Mr Manning an adulterer who had had a child outside of his marriage sometime ago. The issue never took off and, in fact, quickly fell flat. The reason? Possibly because such a direct personal attack smelled of desperation, and also appeared to have nothing to do with the man who was now before the people. In similar vein is the now assertions by Mr Manning, in relation to the 23-year-old Scott Drug Report. If no one was charged then, and nothing probative emanated from that report, why raise it now if not merely to be scandalous? So much water has passed under the bridge since then.
For starters, we have had at least four governments since that time, and one attempted coup. Matters pertaining to the Scott Drug Report and the O'Halloran scandal should be dropped from campaigns in 2010. They are irrelevant today. It seems to me what we should be focussing on what has transpired since the last general election: what reasons there might be for re-electing the PNM after over two years in office, or for replacing them. Anyone who can come up with intelligent and witty arguments, to support one side or the other, will be bound to sway the undecided voters–those who will carry this election. We look forward with anticipation to a keenly-fought and exciting election in the next four weeks. Any side which fails to provide intelligent food for thought, humour and some good picong should be consigned to the political doghouse.