Negative campaigning: Difference between revisions

Negative campaigning is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.

Negative campaigning can be found in most marketplaces where ideas are contested. In U.S. politics mudslinging has been called "as American as Mississippi mud." Some research suggests negative campaigning is the norm in all political venues, mitigated only by the dynamics of a particular contest. [1]

Negative approaches are used in democracies as an element of adversarial policy making and electoral processes. In more unilateral or totalitarian governments the approach is used to suppress opposition. Negative campaign tactics in democracies are often rhetorical, whereas negative campaigns in totalitarian jurisdictions sometimes involve criminal charges and torture to convince constituents of negative aspects of opposition ideas. The use of negative campaigning is a contribution to modern politics by Joseph Goebbels. The Nazi campaigns argued what was wrong with their opponents and ignored stating their own policies.

Techniques

There are a number of techniques used in negative campaigning, the among most open and often most effective is running advertisements attacking an opponent's personality or record.

One of the most famous such ads was Daisy Girl by the campaign of Lyndon B. Johnson that successfully portrayed Republican Barry Goldwater as threatening nuclear war. Common negative campaign techniques include painting an opponent as soft on criminals, dishonest, corrupt, or a danger to the nation. One common negative campaigning tactic is attacking the other side for running a negative campaign.

Dirty tricks are also common in negative political campaigns. These generally involve secretly leaking damaging information to the media. This isolates a candidate from backlash and also does not cost any money. The material must be substantive enough to attract media interest, however, and if the truth is discovered it could severely damage a campaign. Other dirty tricks include trying to feed an opponent's team false information hoping they will use it and embarrass themselves.

Often a campaign will use outside organizations, such as lobby groups, to launch attacks. These can be claimed to be coming from a neutral source and if the allegations turn out not to be true the attacking candidate will not be damaged if the links cannot be proven. Negative campaigning can be conducted by proxy. For instance, highly partisan ads were placed in the 2004 U.S. presidential election by allegedly independent bodies like MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Push polls are attacks disguised as telephone polls. They might ask a question like "How would you react if Candidate A was revealed to beat his wife?", giving the impression that Candidate A might beat his wife. Members of the media and of the opposing party are deliberately not called making these tactics all but invisible and unprovable.

G. Gordon Liddy played a major role in developing these tactics during the Nixon playing an important advisory of rules that lead to the campaign of 1972. Karl Rove, the architect of much of George W. Bush's campaigns is considered a master of negative campaigning. James Carville, mastermind of Bill Clinton's election, is also a major proponent of negative tactics.

Advantages

Sponsors of overt negative campaigns often cite reasons to support mass communication of negative ideas. The Office of National Drug Control Policy uses negative campaigns to steer the public away from what they perceive to be health risks. Similar negative campaigns have been used to rebutt mass marketing by tobacco companies, or to discourage drunk driving. Those who conduct negative political campaigns sometimes say the public needs to know about the person he or she is voting for, even if it is bad. In other words, if a candidate’s opponent is a crook or a bad person, then he or she should be able to tell the public about it.

Cathy Allen, president of Campaign Connection of Seattle, suggested negative campaigning might be the 'proper course' during political contests in the following situations:

• when taking on an incumbent
• when being significantly outspent
• when there is irrefutable information that the opponent has done something wrong
• when the candidate has little name recognition

Campaign organizers who invest their fortunes in negative approaches do so with considerable research to support the merit of their spending. In a 1996 study, researchers concluded that "the informational benefits of negative political ads possess the capacity to promote political participation, particularly among those otherwise least well equipped for political learning." Their testing found citizens who were aware of negative advertising were more likely to vote than those who didn't express recollection of such ads.

Martin Wattenberg and Craig Brians, of the University of California, Irvine, considered in their study whether negative campaigning mobilizes or alienates voters. They concluded that data used by Stephen Ansolabehere in a 1994 American Political Science Review article to advance the hypothesis that negative campaigning demobilizes voters was flawed.

Other researchers have confirmed similar positive results from negative campaigns. Rick Farmer, PhD, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Akron found that negative ads are more memorable than positive ads when they reinforce a pre-existing belief and are relevant to the central issues of a marketing campaign. Researchers at the University of Georgia found the impact of negative ads increases over time, while positive ads used to counteract negative ads lack the power of negative ads. [2] Research also suggests negative campaigning introduces controversy and raises public awareness through additional news coverage. [3]

Risks and consequences

Negative campaigning can evoke negative responses toward the source of the campaign. Some negative campaign tactics shift focus away from substantive issues or policies and turn attention toward personality. Some strategists say that an effect of negative campaigning is that while it motivates the base of support it can alienate centrist and undecided voters from the political process, reducing voter turnout and radicalizing politics.

When used by an incumbent, negative ads can increase name recognition for otherwise lesser known opponents, some sources say. Unless carefully worded, negative campaigns can create in impression that the source of the campaign is mean-spirited.

Negative ads can produce a backlash. A disastrous ad was run by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in the 1993 Canadian federal election, apparently emphasizing Liberal Party of Canada leader Jean Chrétien's facial disability in a number of a unflattering photos, with the subtext of criticizing his platforms. The ad was badly received and helped reduce the governing Conservatives to two seats.

Similar backlash happened to the Liberal Party of Canada in the 2006 federal election for running an attack ad that suggested that Conservative leader Stephen Harper would use Canadian soldiers to brutalize Canadian citizens who resided in cities, and impose some kind of martial law. The ad was only available from the Liberal Party's web site for a few hours prior to the release of the attack ads on television; nevertheless, it was picked up by the media and widely criticized for its absurdity, in particular the sentence "we're not making this up; we're not allowed to make this stuff up". Liberal MP Keith Martin expressed his disapproval of "whoever the idiot who approved that ad was," shortly before Liberal leader Paul Martin (no relation) stated that he had personally approved them. The effect of the ads was to diminish the credibility of the party's other attack ads. It offended many Canadians, particularly those in the military, some of who were fighting in Afghanistan at the time. (See Canadian federal election, 2006)

While some research has found advantages and other has found disadvantages, some studies find no difference between negative and positive approaches. [4]

Controversy and regulation

Critics of negative campaigns sometimes contend that negative ads are not always used for the stated reason. In some cases, negative campaigning presents twisted or spun information under the guise of bringing hidden negatives into the light. Sometimes those who practice negative campaigning and publicity also denounce the approach when used against their side by telling the attacker to be nice, be civil, stay clean, be positive, not hurt others, not get personal, not to scare people, etc. Commentators have asserted that even calls for balance in political rhetoric best serve those with the most to hide.[5]

In commercial advertising, various regulations prohibit false advertising and broadcast campaigns to promote potentially harmful activities, such as advertising tobacco products. Similar regulations have at times been proposed to limit negative political campaigning. Such restrictions have been proposed to regulate political advertising on television and radio, where negative claims might not be fully explained due to time constraints, and would expand disclosure requirements in printed political advertising.

In modern Western societies, however, proposed regulation of public speech is confronted by strong traditions favoring the open exchange of ideas, and by fundamental legal protections such as those of the U.S. Constitution. Practical considerations also weigh against regululation of political speech. Using rhetorical devices such as straw man or red herring arguments, a negative campaign can insinuate an opponent holds an idea without directly accusing the opponent of favoring those ideas. Within constitutional guidelines, few regulations could lawfully control candidates' statements in public appearances, where comments are often repeated in news broadcasts. To the contrary, public figures such as politicians enjoy weaker protection against false allegations than do average citizens.

Notable examples

• "Black baby of John McCain" slur in the George W. Bush primary campaign
• Willie Horton ad used by in the George H. W. Bush 1988 presidential campaign against Michael Dukakis
• The "Convention Ad" ran by Richard Nixon against Hubert Humphrey.
• Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion Comment by Reverend Samuel Burchardin the 1884 U.S. Presidential Election.
• Attacks against George W. Bush's military record in the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign, and responses by some Navy Swift Boat veterans of the Vietnam War.
• COINTELPRO campaign by the FBI against civil rights activists in the US from 1956 to 1970.
• 1993 Health Insurance Association of America Harry and Louise ads attacking Pres. Bill Clinton's health-care reform proposals.
• Local and nationally organized opposition to Wal-Mart stores.[6][7]
• PETA campaign against buying fur, against use of captive animals in research and against Kentucky Fried Chicken
• Deuces High's campaign attacked Black Thunder's stance on health care in a negative campaign ad created by Brian Spinks, Bill Wasik, and Eugene Mirman entitled "Black Thunder" (2001) [8].
• Checkpoint campaign in Billboard magazine claiming competitor's equipment damages audio media. [9]
• Miller Brewing Co.'s and Anheuser Busch Brewing Co.'s 2005 advertisements attacking each other's products.[10][11]
• Libertarian Party runs a negative campaign against the Lemon Party in Election Canada 2006, and fails to win any seats in parliament.

See also

• List of democracy and elections-related topics
• Political scandal
• Smear campaign
• Political campaign
• Advertising
• Anathema
• Opposition research
• Dirty tricks
• Dick Tuck
• Anti-ideologies
• Appeals to ridicule
• Appeals to pity
• Appeals to emotion
• Association
• False advertising
• Libel
• Prior restraint

References

• Wattenberg, Martin P. (Aug. 22, 1996). "Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer". eScholarship Repository. UC Irvine, Department of Politics and Society. Retrieved January 29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |year= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Bike, William S. (March 28, 2004). "Campaign Guide: Negative Campaigning". CompleteCampaigns.com. City: San Diego. Retrieved August 3. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Saletan, William (November 25, 1999). "Three Cheers for Negative Campaigning". Slate. City: Washington. Retrieved August 3. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? Stephen Ansolabehere, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, Nicholas Valentino, 1994, American Political Science Review, 88:829-838
• Winning, But Losing, Ansolabehere and Iyenger, 1996 [12]