Politics, once considered synonymous with government,nshould no longer be so confused. In modern times, politics isnthe art of maneuvering—either openly or secretly—toward anposition of power. Government, on the other hand, is the act ofnruling. To recognize that moving toward power is one activity,nand the use of power itself quite another, is to better understandnwhy the power-seekers in our society (and all others)nmaneuver according to one set of assumptions and rule accordingnto another. Good taste, on the other hand, is, by commonnusage, to reveal through graceful behavior a civilized sensibility.nIt is clear that in order to move successfully toward power,nthe ambitious person must have a keen understanding ofnprevailing codes of culture. He is, after all, wooing. But tonassume that wooing always requires politeness is, at best, naive.nThere is a time in courtship for boldness, and a time in politicalncampaigning for attack.nJ-/ast November Americans observed—in local, state, andnnational contests—a variety of campaigns that used everynmodern instrument of communication. The spectacle was notnexactly heartwarming, but it was certainly an excellent portraitnof our present national situation, as it exhibited both politicsn(the art of seeking power) and good taste (the art of catering toncultural habits and assumptions). Some observers in the medianclaimed—largely on the basis of the huge sums expended—thatnthe campaign reached a new low in Americannpoliticking. That conclusion seems, to say the least, exaggerated.nFor years, the media watched the political organizationnof mass trade unions and hundreds of thousands of unpaidnworkers for the Democratic Party in election after election andnshowed not the slightest sign of dismay. What excites the ire ofnthe media today, as it did in 1980, is the amount oiRepublwannParty funds and, especially, the corporate PAC’s. These, thenmedia intone, are menaces to democracy. There has also beennsome indignation expressed over the use of voting records tonassess candidates standing for re-election. How such objectionsncan be reconciled with reason is remarkable: if a candidate’snperformance should not be cited, what should be? His opinions,nof course. It is a liberal article of faith that people shouldnbe judged not on their own behavior but on their opinions ofnother people’s behavior. Therefore, commercials attackingnSenator Kennedy’s character, based on a number of incidentsnand positions he has taken in his career, were barred from thentelevision stations of Massachusetts on the grounds that theynconstituted an unjust assault. A violation, if you like, of goodntaste. On the other hand, it was not the television stations ofnCalifornia that removed Jerry Brown’s commercial against SannDiego’s mayor Pete Wilson (a mushroom cloud was shown,nsomehow linking the death of children to Pete Wilson), butnMr. Brown himself, who received protests from the public. Innthis instance, it was Jerry Brown’s camp (and not the networks)nwhich admitted not a violation of good taste, but an error ofnChronicles of CulturenPOLITICS & GOOD TASTE ‘nCOMMENTnnncampaign judgment: surely a lesser offense. The networks, notnsurprisingly, remained silent.nOther instances from the campaign of 1982 range betweennthese extremes. As usual, some observers claimed to benfastidiously offended by the entire proceeding. Their attitudesncame close to that of one 19th-century Congressman—JohnnRandolph of Virginia—who once proposed bringing down thenentire American government by the simple expedient of havingnall voters stay away from the polls. If nobody voted, Randolphnreasoned, the terms of office of all incumbents would expirenby statute, no successors could appear (since none would benelected), and a new government would have to be created tonreplace the collapse of the old. Mr. Randolph’s suggestion fellnon barren ground in his own time, but his more pessimisticnprophecies about calamities to come were amply borne out bynthe Civil War. But he still may be right on the other score, asnevidenced by the diminishing electorate.nA here are some who believe that our protracted and increasinglyndistractive campaign periods are largely responsiblenfor this falling away of the electorate. It seems more likely thatndeeper causes are to blame. So far as tastefulness is concerned,nAmerican election campaigns were never really polite: the 19thncentury saw some truly vicious confrontations and at least onenPresident was put in office by fraud. But in general the electoratenduring the 19th century, with the exception of the North-nSouth rupture, was in accord on basic principles. Violations ofn