When someone is running for office against an incumbent, the burden of proof is on the challenger to show why the incumbent should be removed from office. If the challenger cannot articulate why the incumbent needs to be removed, why should the incumbent be removed? If things are going well, why change?
If the incumbent has done a poor job and the challenger will not attack (for whatever reason) the challenger is not fulfilling his obligation to the voters. This can include the management of the office, legislative voting record, or personal character. The voters deserve to have this information in order to make an informed choice. This is why negative campaigning is not only justified, it is necessary. Note there is a difference between negative and dirty. (More on that below.)
Obviously people have to be given a reason to vote for the challenger and not just for the incumbent. It is important for the challenger to emphasize his qualifications, experience, policy positions and (if applicable) his voting record to show the voters why they should vote for him. A purely negative campaign, without a positive plan for change, does not show voters why the challenger deserves the office.
But the reason I am writing this is that we are constantly hearing about negative campaigning and how bad it is. People should not attack each other, the campaign should be about ideas, and so forth. (Again, we must recognize that negative and dirty are not the same.) We live in a society where we want to be Pleasantville, where no one ever fights. But living in Pleasantville requires abandoning Realville. The absence of conflict always means the absence of truth.
Here is an important point: Negative and dirty are not the same. Pointing out that someone cannot manage his office or has a voting record that does not match the wishes of the district or state (for example) is not the same as calling him a bunch of obscene names, insulting his wife, celebrating his divorce, or falsely accusing him of murdering an intern. There is a world of difference between criticizing someone's record and being personally nasty and spreading lies.
Negative campaigning plays a critical role in our electoral system. Voters deserve to know the information about both candidates, good and bad, in order to make an informed choice. A candidate who refuses to go negative despite having clear and compelling evidence of his/her opponent's faults and failures has no business being a candidate - especially if he is running against an incumbent.
Negative campaigning is necessary and good
Voters deserve all information, good and bad. Candidates who refuse to go negative are abandoning their obligation to the voters.
