In this morning’s WaPo Dan Balz, has this review of In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns by John G. Geer (University of Chicago Press.) Some extracts:
Geer states what others before him have said: Negativity has long been part of American politics. He points out that 70 percent of the statements in the Declaration of Independence were negative and that candidates have been called liars and murderers or worse in campaigns that took place long before television or radio.
The Declaration was not, however, a campaign statement. It was an attempt to set forth a just cause for going to war. Negative statements were necessary in this case.
Because voters are skeptical about attack ads, candidates provide far more documentation to support their criticisms (and were long before the media began to referee the ads) than they do to validate claims in positive ads. He quotes Republican media consultant Mike Murphy as saying, "We have a joke in this business: The only difference between negative and positive ads is that negative ads have facts in them." Those "facts," however, are sometimes open to question.
I pay attention to negative ads. They help me to see how far a candidate will go by appealing to hatred and fear.
In Charlottesville we are at the end of a campaign for City Council and the School Board. The democratic City Council candidates have just released a misleading ad attacking the voting record of Rob Schilling, the only Republican to have been elected in this town since 1992. Negative ads released towards the end of a campaign are a sign of desperation.
If the ballot contained a space for “none of the above” voters could let the parties know that none of their candidates are acceptable and force another election. While this will never happen, it would give us a way to deal with negative ads.
Comments