My readers may remember my discussion with Savvy, the Twistcon political avatar (reference “The Twistcon”). At the time I was merely curious how such a device would make political campaigning easier. Since then, I have become quite bewildered by the American Presidential campaign. So I decided to revisit Twistcon and ask Savvy to clear up some of my confusion. The following is a record of our dialogue:

Savvy: You’re back! Have you reconsidered running for office?
Me: No. Thanks to you I know what that would cost. Not only my wife, but my children would abandon me.
Savvy: Glad to help. At least now you know character assassination is part of politics.
Me: But does it work? How does it work? And is it fair—do I even dare to say—is it moral?
Savvy: Your last question confuses the game of politics with philosophy, the same mistake Aristotle made. He feared democracy would release a torrent of insidious accusations, demagoguery and the risk of mob rule. My data supports his concerns. But he missed the point. Surely you can see any question of fairness is just naïve. You know your first President was accused of murder and treason by opposition journalists*.
Me: That tact clearly didn’t work.
Savvy: Actually the accusations were not aimed at Washington but at his Vice President who was running to succeed him. You know “the sins of the father . . .”
Me: So the end justifies the means. Define your opponent’s character directly or by association with any repulsive act whether true or fictional. Still, I was right: it didn’t work. John Adams was elected anyway.
Savvy: You asked three questions. Two have been answered. The first is simply the wrong question. Instead you should ask why it doesn’t always work.
Me: Okay, why does character assassination not always work?
Savvy: You might think the answer is that it’s proven wrong. But, as John Adams insisted, you must let “nothing pass unanswered; reasoning must be answered by reasoning; wit by wit, humor by humor; satire by satire; burlesque by burlesque and even buffoonery by buffoonery.**” My database is filled with examples of political contests where “burlesque” and “buffoonery” compete with logic, rhetoric, ridicule, sarcasm and satire. You see Adams paved the way for all future Presidential campaigns.
Me: So character assassination is best answered by character assassination?
Savvy: You are a slow learner. Remember the old adage, “You can only beat fire with fire.”
Me: I think I’m beginning to understand. One of our candidates deleted emails and the other refuses to show tax returns. They divert voters from these cover-ups while attacking their opponents. The voters are left to deal with assumptions and accusations rather than facts, right? But this is really unfair.
Savvy: Indeed, you are a political neophyte. You miss the point entirely. It is completely possible that neither the tax returns nor the deleted emails involve criminal activity. Both, however, provide many avenues of attack. No candidate wants to be put in a position to defend against innumerable innuendoes and negative associations. These opponents aren’t necessarily hiding illegal activities. They’re just shadow boxing. What if the tax returns show that a real estate mogul pays less or no taxes? What if a cabinet official’s emails show support for a charitable organization created by a spouse? All the minutiae in those tax returns and in those emails would be roiled in the press and the opponent’s campaign apparatus ad nauseam. Avoiding a punch is as much a part of the contest as delivering a blow.
Me: But what if the tax return is fraudulent or the emails reveal a “pay to play” by a government official?
Savvy: How likely is it that the tax lawyers of a wealthy businessman would submit a fraudulent tax return? And what personal gain would not a cabinet official obtain by steering a philanthropist to a charitable organization in which neither she nor her spouse receives monetary compensation?
Me: I guess I really don’t get it.
Savvy: Politics is more about perception than reality.
Me: Shadow boxing . . . throwing and defending punches with a shadow rather than a real opponent . . .
Savvy: Now you’re beginning to understand. The contest is first fought virtually in campaign back rooms, then publically in the arena refereed by the press, and finally in the minds of the voters.
Me: In the scenario you’ve drawn, even the candidates aren’t real. I mean both candidates are contesting with a straw opponent while conjuring a self-image they believe will win an election.
Savvy: Finally, you’re beginning to understand.
Me: You’ve left me with a different dilemma. In order to make this election real, I have to analyze intent as well as stated positions, disregard innuendos where facts are not known, weigh best versus worst case scenarios, and somehow determine who can be trusted in office?
Savvy: Welcome to democracy.

Frustrated, I turned off Twistcon’s power. Maybe I’m a bit disillusioned with the game. Politicians attempt to create the arena that favors them while the press reports endlessly on every ebb and flow of the blow-by-blow contest that unfolds. The only absolutely real part of the show is my vote—and the trust I put in the candidate I choose.

* p. 909, Smith, Page (1963), “John Adams,” Volume II, Norwalk: The Easton Press.
**p. 833, Ibid.