E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, January 16, 2012

In defense of negative campaigning

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:30 AM (#)

Note: This editorial was originally written back in 2008. With the Presidential campaign in full gear, and with local and state elections heating up, negative campaigning needs to be defended again.

We hear it every election year. People complain about negative campaigning, attack ads, and the "uncivil" tone of the campaigns. Those complaints get the most attention in a Presidential election year, but there are complaints about candidates going negative in city, county and state elections as well. And yet, every single election season, there are more negative ads from both parties, and within party primaries. Why? Because they work.

It seems that many people casually observing politics think that "negative" and "uncivil" are the same thing. That is not the case. While it is true that nasty personal attacks are common, there are also many valuable, issue-oriented negative ads that inform the voters and enhance the debate. I would argue that in many cases, a candidate for elective office has a responsibility to the voters to go negative at some point in the campaign, especially in a policy-making office from Congress down to county commissioner.

Suppose Candidate A believes Candidate B's tax policy will slow economic growth and/or is unfair to a significant portion of citizens, and B's tax policy is getting no (or favorable) coverage in the media. A should then run an advertisement and communicate with voters about why B's tax policy will not only fail to solve the problems it proposes to fix, but will actually make things worse. B then has an opportunity to respond to the A's arguments in his own ad, perhaps criticizing A's tax plan. Voters then come away able to make a more educated choice.

Obviously, the above is a purely hypothetical example you're likely to hear in a political science class instead of what often happens in the real world. But the fact of the matter is that there are good negative ads that serve a useful purpose in every election season. Those who complain that a campaign is "too negative" lump the good negative ads in with the bad negative ads. It is a "pox on both houses" argument that may make someone feel above the fray, but provides little in the way of content.

Clearly, positive campaigning is needed too. Candidates and political parties need to give voters a reason to vote for them in addition to voting against the other candidate. The 1994 Contract with America provides a good template for how to do that. The Republicans certainly attacked the Democrats for supporting President Clinton's policies, but they also outlined a positive agenda and gave people something to vote for. Republicans should have learned in 2006 that telling voters, especially your base, that the other side is worse simply is not good enough. You have to provide a reason for people to vote for you. Unfortunately, I do not think that lesson has been learned.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.