Qamar Bashir
Watching television in Michigan, I hear one election advertisement after another describe an opposing candidate as dangerous. The names change, the parties change, but the warning remains. Across the advertisements I encounter, nobody seems to be spared. If these campaigns are to be believed, Americans are preparing to send dangerous people into the House and Senate. What, then, will become of the country and the families whose future these representatives will decide?
Before coming to the United States, I associated such relentless mudslinging largely with developing countries. In Pakistan, I had watched political differences descend into insults, allegations of betrayal and character assassination. I expected greater restraint from an established democracy. Instead, I have encountered a familiar practice supported by an exceptionally powerful advertising industry.
One candidate appears as a threat to public safety, another as a servant of wealthy interests, another as fundamentally dishonest. Then the next commercial reverses the accusation. The person presented as the country’s protector becomes its supposed danger when the opponent’s advertisement begins.
The audience faces an unsettling dilemma. Accept these portrayals and distrust the people seeking office; reject them and question the honesty of those financing the messages. Either response can weaken confidence in politics. A candidate may win an election while helping destroy the credibility needed to govern afterwards.
The attacks extend into debates, rallies and social media. The Hill’s October 25 account of seven particularly bitter campaign moments documents exchanges across states and parties. In Ohio, Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign featured Amy Acton’s estranged mother calling her daughter a liar. In Texas, attacks on James Talarico targeted his masculinity, former veganism and supposed sexuality. Such personal ridicule tells voters little about governing ability.
In Georgia, Jon Ossoff called Mike Collins a bigot and invoked Nazi imagery over his office’s staffing, amid controversy about antisemitic posts by people connected to Collins. Collins condemned racism and antisemitism. In Maine, Troy Jackson told Susan Collins to “shut up” after she attributed a debate interruption to one of his supporters; Jackson denied knowing the protester.
Michigan provided examples within and between parties. Mike Rogers sought to associate Abdul El-Sayed with the Muslim Brotherhood, which El-Sayed disavowed. During the Democratic primary, Haley Stevens faced online mockery of her appearance and voice. El-Sayed himself disparaged her speaking ability before later urging supporters to stop personal mockery and focus on issues.
In Ohio’s Senate contest, Sherrod Brown and Jon Husted each invoked the other’s donations from people linked, closely or loosely, to Jeffrey Epstein. FactCheck.org identified omissions in both presentations. Financial relationships merit scrutiny, but an insinuation of shared guilt can travel much further than the evidence supporting it.
These incidents are not interchangeable. Criticism of documented misconduct differs from religious insinuation; an insult differs from a criminal accusation. Nevertheless, responsibility for truthful, proportionate campaigning belongs to every party. The standard must follow the conduct, whoever engages in it.
Nor should genuine misconduct disappear behind complaints about mudslinging. The House Ethics Committee found inappropriate conduct by Republican Chuck Edwards towards female staff members and announced a review of allegations involving Republican Max Miller, who denies abuse accusations. Democratic politician Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick has faced charges over the alleged diversion of $5 million in disaster funds, including money allegedly used for campaigning. She has denied wrongdoing.
An ethics finding, an investigation and a criminal charge represent different stages of accountability. None should be misrepresented. Parties must resist both manufactured disgrace and the protection of misconduct. Faster, fairer investigations, safeguards against retaliation and clear public findings would help voters distinguish substantiated concerns from electoral insinuation.
The resources shaping public impressions are enormous. AdImpact data analysed by the Wesleyan Media Project recorded Senate advertising expenditure of $56.95 million in Michigan, $90.21 million in Ohio and $112.58 million in Texas between September 8 and 27. Outside groups supplied approximately 69, 77 and 83 percent respectively. These totals cover all advertising, not exclusively attacks, but demonstrate the scale of the contest for public attention.
Corporate interests, wealthy donors and advocacy organisations all deserve scrutiny. AIPAC and its affiliated United Democracy Project belong within that examination, alongside other influential groups. Voters should know who pays for political messages, what interests sponsors advance and whether candidates’ commitments serve their constituents.
The law must also be described accurately. Foreign governments cannot lawfully finance American election campaigns. Corporations generally cannot contribute treasury funds directly to federal candidates, although eligible corporate funding can support independent spending through super PACs. Foreign-agent registration does not override election-finance restrictions. Enforcing these rules and improving transparency are essential to meaningful public oversight.
My experience in public service suggests a troubling contrast. Military personnel, bureaucrats, lawyers and corporate leaders often protect their professions’ standing despite internal disagreements. Politicians repeatedly damage their collective reputation for individual advantage. Yet professional solidarity must never become a shield against accountability. What deserves protection is the integrity of public service, not immunity for those who abuse it.
Both major parties should adopt a public campaign code with meaningful internal consequences. Serious factual accusations should carry accessible evidence. Religious identity, appearance and family vulnerability should not become substitutes for evaluating public conduct. False claims should receive prominent corrections, and candidates should repudiate misleading outside advertisements supporting them.
Criticism cannot reasonably wait for a criminal conviction. Journalism and public scrutiny often uncover wrongdoing before courts act. The necessary discipline is accuracy: distinguish association from complicity, allegations from findings, and policy disagreement from hostility towards the nation. Congress should strengthen disclosure and enforcement within constitutional protections for political speech.
A vibrant democracy should continually refine its practices. Elections should test whether candidates understand the problems confronting their communities, states and country. Integrity is indispensable, but voters must also assess competence, judgement and the ability to turn promises into results. A clean reputation alone does not establish the capacity to govern.
Candidates should explain what they intend to accomplish, what it will cost, which powers their office actually provides and when citizens can expect progress. Plans for affordable healthcare, reliable infrastructure, safer neighbourhoods and stronger public services should include measurable goals and realistic deadlines. Legislators should specify the laws, funding and oversight they will pursue rather than promise outcomes they cannot deliver alone.
That is the standard a mature democracy should set for itself and offer to the world. Families deserve representatives who make their country stronger, safer and more prosperous, and who can be judged against commitments made before election day.
Calling every opponent dangerous cannot answer those needs. America’s candidates should tell voters how they will solve the country’s problems and accept responsibility for the results. The lasting measure of an election is not how thoroughly its contestants destroy one another, but how well its winners serve the people.
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd), Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC .He is living in Michigan, USA
