LET'S GET one thing straight: negative campaigning is good. Focus groups might not like it, women voters might not like it. But in a campaign like this, is there any better way to engage voters than by bashing your opponent?
In American elections, there is a certain inevitability about negative campaigns. At the outset of the general campaign, both nominees issue some vague pledge about their unwillingness to attack each other, about a desire to elevate the tone, along with a lot of other nonsense. All the while, the candidates and their partisan supporters want nothing more than to rip into the political flesh of their opponent. When they just cannot stand to contain themselves, they let the mud fly. And that's where it gets interesting.
Negative campaigning, especially in the marathon campaigns that have evolved here in the United States, serves two purposes. First, it makes interesting otherwise drab contests between two equally drab politicians. Secondly, it forces both sides to define themselves with respect to each other, making it that much harder to paper over the widening gulf between the two major parties. For all the criticism it gets from pundits and soccer moms, we would all be worse off without negative campaigning.
After the presidential debate last week, the major networks and their cable counterparts hosted focus groups to discuss the debate with admittedly undecided voters. While most voters appeared satisfied with the content of the debate, there were a few who inexplicably took offense at the minor snipes that Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush directed at one another. It is fascinating that anyone would watch a presidential debate and act surprised when the candidates do, in fact, disagree.
One could clearly infer - from Gore's repeated sighs and Bush's occasional shaking of his head - that these guys would love to throw off the gloves and have at it. The party conventions used to provide this opportunity. But this summer there was a notable absence - especially among the Republicans - of any so-called "red meat." Both parties follow the polls intensely, and this election year poll respondents tell them that they do not want to hear a negative word spoken between the candidates.
That's too bad, because we are missing out on what could be one entertaining campaign season. Since this election cycle really began in the winter of 1999, the Conan O'Briens and David Lettermans of the world have had more time than usual to come up with material and to reinforce the perceived flaws of the candidates. Gore is boring and a chronic panderer. Bush is stupid and cannot form a complete sentence. Wouldn't it be great if just once - their closing statements of the last debate, perhaps - the candidates let loose with what they really thought of one another?
Bush's final remarks would say something to the effect of: "Well, Mr. Vice President, I cannot believe that anyone would take seriously a single word you say. You're a liar and a panderer who will say anything to win. You tongue-kissed your wife in front of 30 million Americans to try and get women to vote for you. And even that was only semi-effective. Even today, a lot of them think you're a robot. I'm a compassionate conservative, and that's why voters won't trust a snake like you."
Gore would probably sigh, shake his head and then respond: "I'm proud to see the Americans with Disabilities Act is working so well, Governor. If you win, we would have the first mentally challenged president in our history. Good for you. Where did you think up that 'compassionate conservative' stuff? Was it while you were nose-down in a sugar bowl of coke in some Houston flophouse back in the '70s? Americans are going to elect me president because I don't hide behind subliminable - excuse me - subliminal ads or bland platitudes. That's why I'm going to win."
If the air of negativity even approached the level above, it would make the debates genuinely entertaining and more informative. Independent of their debating tactics, both candidates know that they have to "go negative" in order to win. The fact that negative campaigning almost always works is America's dirty little political secret. Fear is the greatest motivator for voters. More often than not, we vote against the person whose presence in office scares us the most. In 1988 voters opted for George Bush because television ads featuring the infamous Willie Horton scared them into believing that Michael Dukakis was soft on crime. In 1992, the prospect of four more years of economic stagnation under this same George Bush was too much to bear.
In an ideal world, we would all vote for candidates we support, instead of against ones we oppose. But until that happens, negative campaigns will remain the most effective way for politicians to drum up voter fear of "the other." In an election such as this one with two candidates so ripe for mockery, negative tactics could provide a welcome change from the false politeness that both candidates reluctantly exude.
(Timothy DuBoff's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | YesterdayA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 4 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
SULLIVAN: Gov. Youngkin purges integrity from voter registration process
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoYoungkin once again abandoned his duty to protect Virginian voters’ rights, setting a dangerous precedent for elections.
