Campaign by Removal of Dignity: The Long Lost Art of Debate
In the not-so-distant past, political campaigns were rooted in presenting policy platforms, debating ideas, and offering concrete plans for change. Candidates distinguished themselves by showing how their vision for the future was different — and, hopefully, better — than that of their opponents. However, in recent years, we’ve witnessed a concerning shift in political discourse. Campaigns have increasingly focused on tearing down the other side rather than offering solutions, engaging in what could be described as a “campaign by removal of dignity.”
Instead of explaining why their policy plans will work, many politicians today rely on tactics that strip their opponents — and even their opponents’ supporters — of their inherent dignity. They point fingers, focus on the flaws of others, and stir up emotions that push us into an “us versus them” mentality. This is not just about disagreement; it’s about dehumanizing the other side, reducing them to a caricature of the worst possible interpretation of their actions, beliefs, or affiliations.
This shift is well captured by the Dignity Index, a tool designed by researchers to measure the level of respect and dignity that people engage with when they discuss opposing views. The Dignity Index offers an eight-point scale, ranking interactions from the most dignified to the most divisive. At the top of the scale (8), we see dialogue that treats everyone with inherent worth and dignity, regardless of disagreements. As the scale lowers, respect diminishes, with a score of 1 representing extreme dehumanization, where opponents are considered less than human and must be destroyed for survival.
Here’s a breakdown of the Dignity Index:
8: Each person is born with inherent worth, so everyone is treated with dignity, no matter what.
7: Full engagement with the other side, discussing values and admitting mistakes.
6: Talking to the other side to find shared interests and values.
5: Recognizing the other side’s right to be heard.
4: Viewing others as not belonging and reinforcing “us vs. them.”
3: Claiming “we’re the good people, and they’re the bad people.”
2: Believing the other side is evil and a threat to survival.
1: Dehumanizing the other side entirely, justifying their destruction.
The lower end of this scale is becoming increasingly prevalent in modern political discourse, where conversations aren’t about policy but about destroying the opponent’s credibility, often without offering substantive alternatives.
Take recent campaign strategies, for example. It is no longer surprising to see attack ads that don’t focus on policy differences but on personal attacks. These ads often cherry-pick moments out of context to vilify the opposing candidate, ignoring their broader policies. This leads to a climate where politicians are not just opposed to each other; they paint each other as existential threats to the country.
In today’s political climate, running for office comes with new and alarming risks, particularly for female politicians. With the rise of AI-generated images, it’s disturbingly easy for bad actors to create and spread fake photos of candidates in compromising positions. Recently it was AIPAC who doctored photos of senator Cori Bush from Missouri, by distorting her features in attack ads to unseat her from office, and did so successfully. These fabricated images can go viral in an instant, causing immense harm not only to the candidate but also to their families, who may witness this humiliation splashed across the internet. The threat goes beyond just defamation; it places politicians in a position of actual danger, where their personal safety and mental well-being are at risk. What once may have been a decision to serve the public now includes the potential of being publicly shamed, attacked, and undermined by tools that strip away dignity, all while facing threats to one’s security both online and offline.
A notable example was seen in the 2020 presidential campaign. Instead of focusing solely on his own policies, then-President Trump frequently referred to his opponent, Joe Biden, as a threat to America’s way of life, using terms like “Sleepy Joe” to discredit him on a personal level. In response, Biden’s campaign often pointed to Trump’s handling of issues like COVID-19 in a way that painted the administration as dangerous and reckless. Both campaigns spent more time on attack ads than offering comprehensive policy breakdowns for their respective visions of America. In this election, it’s Trump purposely mispronouncing Kamala Harris’ name, or Biden saying Trump had the morals of an alley cat. It’s the Vice Presidential candidates attacking each other for whether their military service was good enough, instead of thanking each other for it.
Candidates in all races are emphasizing how “unfit” their opponents are, referring to them as radical or dangerous, rather than focusing on what they themselves will do to improve the lives of their constituents. The result is that campaigns devolve into a finger-pointing exercise, attempting to strip away the dignity of the other side rather than engaging in meaningful debates on how to solve the country’s problems.
Why Does This Matter? When campaigns focus on stripping dignity from their opponents, they create an environment where solutions are secondary to emotions. This shift has eroded public trust in political processes, leading to deeper divides. Instead of focusing on common ground, these tactics deepen partisan lines, making it harder for people to listen to or respect those on the other side.
What happens when we don’t treat others with dignity? We lose the ability to have constructive conversations about how to solve our nation’s most pressing issues. We stop seeing our political opponents as fellow citizens with different ideas and start seeing them as enemies. And when we do that, we lose the potential for compromise, collaboration, and progress.
In the end, campaigns by removal of dignity harm us all. They undermine our democracy by reducing political discourse to a battle of character assassination rather than an exchange of ideas. The Dignity Index reminds us that even in disagreement, we should strive to treat each other with respect and engage in conversations that move us toward solutions, not division.
As citizens and voters, we need to demand more from those who seek to lead us. We should look for candidates who score high on the Dignity Index — those who engage with their opponents, discuss policy differences with respect, and prioritize solutions over personal attacks. Only then can we hope to rebuild trust in our political system and work together to solve the challenges facing our nation.
