The battle for the most coveted prize in American politics is heating up and by heating up I mean it's getting down-right nasty. If it was only the contenders in the ring it would be vicious enough but fans on both sides are throwing their weight in and we are now in the midst of a brouhaha of unprecedented magnitude.
This is not however a political post, roast or enticement. My intent is to suggest we step back from the mud-slinging and vitriol and ask a very simple, but profoundly important question. Does the behavior both in and outside the ring serve a genuine good purpose? When all is said and done, does anybody really win, when the game is played this way?
Competition such as this is rampant in the business world. It's not enough to promote the
good things we have- a dose of deprecation of our competitors is often a big part of the plan. Is our best simply not good enough? Is it really possible that our merits alone are insufficient to convince our customers that we are good enough?
I have read that negative campaiging works, but despite all the reasons I have heard to explain it, I just don't get it. Call me old-fashioned (I admit I've been around for a while but if what you have to offer is not of interest to me, there is no amount of stomping on your competitor that will convince me to change my mind.
