Corruption, Bad Taste But Not Crimes in Politics

Worcester State Senator Harriet Chandler was right to sue William Higgins, her competitor for the Massachusetts Senate seat they both sought, over the deliberate distortions and lies Higgins used to accuse Chandler of committing a crime.
Beyond the pathetic delusional ramblings and missives he sent her way, he accused her of taking bribes and being corrupt. He accused her of committing criminal acts. Without evidence, this cannot be let stand in public discourse. With evidence, he should go to a state prosecutor.
If William Higgins said that our present political system is basically corrupt, I would agree with and applaud him. If he said there was scary little difference between giving a politician a check for their re-election committee and giving one to them for their personal benefit, because politicians generally are seeking personal power, not wealth, and political benefactors seek concrete influence on matters important to them, not principles of political philosophy generally, I would also agree with him. The whole system of money’s influence in politics stinks. If William Higgins said that Harriet Chandler was part of a larger political problem – even a corrupt system – I would again agree with him. But that’s not what he said. He claimed that Chandler was guilty of corruption, soliciting and taking bribes and using her political office for her own personal gain-crimes.
If Higgins complained about all the money the gambling industry is using to fund legislator’s campaigns, or all the money the banking industry gave to Senator Scott Brown to water down the financial regulation bill, or all the money and manpower that unions give to Democratic Party politicians, I would applaud him. If he attacked the system, instead of Senator Chandler personally, I would applaud him. But a personal attack calling her corrupt instead of the system that she is a part of corrupt, is mean spirited and inappropriate. It is personal, it is not principled.
Politics is a dirty business. Personal compromises are often made, principle is often left behind, and candidates see each other as personal opponents and adversaries not as people offering competing views of the world. Everything that can be done to make the debate on about policies and not personalities should be advanced. This is not high school. Personal attacks are mean spirited, distract voters from what’s at stake and get voters, who most often do not pay all that much attention to politics, to just get an emotional feel for a candidate instead of knowing or caring what they stand for. Anything and everything we can do to elevate politics to a higher level should be done even if it unfortunately involved bringing an irresponsible competitor to court.