Clinton vs Trump: Ad Hominem, Ad Infinitum...

The most recent election debate saw Clinton and Trump lock horns in a battle to win over voters and promote themselves on various levels. What we saw was a Democrat and a Republican fighting their corners with a mixture of highly-charged rhetoric, contentious claims and most noticeably, ad hominem attacks. One may say that personal, character strikes have become an entrenched tradition in Western politics and elections; however, what we saw during the latest debate was, quite frankly, shameful.

Trump and Clinton launched personal attacks on one another which led to mixtures of laughter, booing, cheering and hissing. In fact, one may be forgiven for thinking they had tuned in to a Jerry Springer episode at first glance. After a good 20 minutes of jibes surrounding each other’s character, many of us hoped we were finally progressing towards policy talk and manifestos. Unfortunately, however, this was far from the case. Further allegations and accusations were pulled out of the woodwork by the two candidates; the debate was becoming less of a space for policy voicing, and more of a political boxing ring within which fighters tried to tarnish each other’s reputation with as much vindictiveness as possible.

It may come across as ‘surface xenophobia’ when I say this tradition of constant personal strikes – whether libellous or accurate - possesses an inherently American quality. Election campaigns, conferences and debates in the UK seem to proceed with an emphasis on policy canvassing and on championing party manifestos, rather than a political zoo where candidates attempt to cause one another to slip on the proverbial banana skin of their private lives. Of course, the British population also witness instances of ad hominem statements from political candidates during elections, however, they are usually highlighted as symptomatic of a particular policy or stance, rather than from personal allegations like the misogyny of a fellow politician.

Of course, this begs the question: how important is a candidate’s private life and past behaviour in determining his or her effectiveness as an electable leader? One view to take is that to hold public office requires a character filled with integrity, honesty, fairness and a clean, positive record in terms of private affairs. On the other hand, however, we may be deemed as holding a Platonist totalitarian view of rulers if we were to claim the above; we are all human and consequently make mistakes over our life course. Perhaps the importance is that politicians learn from these mistakes positively? Looking towards a modern view of politics, I think it wise to take ad hominem attacks from contesting party heads with a pinch of political salt. Nevertheless, I can empathise with the view that personal characteristics form an essential part of a ruler’s ability to execute executive function.

Whatever the case, I think it safe to say that we would all appreciate a more policy-focused debate and narrative from both republican and democratic figures, with a view t determining who can truly bring the most positive, pragmatic change to the US.