Play the ball, not the man

There seems to be a worrying trend pervading the world of politics at the moment, one that does not seem to be limited to the United Kingdom's body politic alone, but stretches across the globe. Perhaps it has always been like this but as I am still only in my twenties, I have not noticed it so much.

What I refer to is the current fashion for 'playing the man, rather than the ball' as a good friend of mine put it to me recently. It seems enough, in our political discourse, to merely infer that someone is compromised in some way, that they are the issue rather than their views, policies and agendae. Very often this manifests itself in an attack on the individual concerned, one that is personal and potentially very damaging, and often more than in just words.

Here are four recent examples that have caught my eye:

1. Tory bear vs Christine Quigley - a spat that blew up because of the former's suggestion that the latter was not abiding by the impartiality clauses stipulated by the civil service code. Click here for more.
2. 'Birthers' vs Barack Obama - it seems to me, a movement borne out of the fact they could not accept losing the election in 2008 and so have to conjure up some ridiculous conspiracy theory about the president not being born in the US and so is ineligible. Click here for an excellent debunking.
3. Massimo Tartaglia (alleged) vs Silvio Berlusconi - ok, taking the 'play the man rather the ball' analogy to its most literal conclusion, but it does, in my mind, represent the most extreme form of 'ad hominem' attacks (besides outright assassination, perhaps.) Agree or disagree with Mr Berlusconi, he is not deserving of that kind of treatment, surely? (The same would apply to the eggings received by John Major when he was PM, as well as John Prescott.)
4. Kerry McCarthy MP vs Iain Dale/Shane Greer/Total Politics magazine - finally, something of a controversial one that might get me into some trouble. I like Ms McCarthy a lot, but her feud with Messrs Dale and Greer, and her accusations of bias levelled against TP seem illogical and based more on her prejudices than fact. It all began when a comment (or a joke, perhaps?) by Ms McCarthy on Twitter did not chime particularly well with Mr Greer, resulting in an almighty spat, which continues to rumble to this day.

I don' think all of this is a very healthy place to be in. I hold my own views and I enjoy a robust debate with someone who opposes these as much as the next person, however there seems to be a growing tendency to undermine one's opponents by subjecting them to personal attacks designed to bring their character into question and deflecting attention away from what their views actually are.

This will have two very tangible outcomes, in my opinion. Firstly, it will serve to turn the 'ordinary' voter off. Noone likes to see adults squabbling like children over the most pedantic of issues, not when serious matters are at stake like poverty, equal rights, the condition of the military and the state of the economy. Secondly, those subjected to these attacks are not abstracts; my opinions can take the abuse, and may emerge the better for it, however if a person is subjected to the kind of attacks I have highlighted above, this could have ruinous consequences for them. Berlusconi has lost some teeth, Quigley could have lost her job (and been smeared for life), Obama could have lost the presidency and the reputations of Dale, Greer and TP could be tarnished.

Let's move past this again, and return to political discussion based on policy, not personality. There the attacks might actually do some good.

P