Is democracy served by negative campaigning?

ShareThis

Just a few months ago, the prospect of a John McCain-Barack Obama election held the promise of providing relief from the barrage of negative advertising that assaults Americans every four years. Both men promised to abandon "old politics" and to treat each other with respect. No more Swift Boats. No more Willie Hortons.But the new politics looks pretty much like the old politics. McCain's campaign has compared Obama to Britney Spears; Obama's campaign has mocked McCain for the number of houses he owns. Both campaigns appear to have decided that the only safe response to negative campaigning is more negative campaigning.Are there good reasons for negative advertising? Is democracy well served by mudslinging? Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, jump into the fray.JOEL MATHISPolitics ain't beanbag. And the negative campaigning of the 21st century probably isn't any harsher than the allegations of an out-of-wedlock child leveled at Grover Cleveland during the 19th century, or the accusations of "Frenchness" lobbed at Thomas Jefferson a few decades before that.Still, there's a reason that many Americans find politics -- and politicians -- odious. And it's largely because they spend so much time and money trying to depict each other as odious. It's hard, even tedious work to win a political argument on the merits. But it is quite easy to grab attention by casting aspersions on your opponent's character. The other candidate can't ever just be wrong; they have to be evil, as well.John McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq. Barack Obama doesn't. John McCain would extend President Bush's economic policies. Barack Obama would take a different route. These are real issues that affect the real lives of millions of Americans, and they provide plenty of opportunities for a hard-fought debate.In the end, Britney Spears won't matter. Neither will the seven houses. The policy choices of our next president will matter, however. The current round of negative campaigning is obscuring the real issues, making it harder for Americans to make a responsible decision at the polls.BEN BOYCHUKFunny thing about negative campaigning: It works. Just ask John McCain. The Arizona Senator endured withering -- and untrue -- attacks eight years ago in the South Carolina Republican primary.And ask Barack Obama. Yes, he's received a fusillade of negative attacks. But for all the talk about Obama as the harbinger of a new politics, Obama can give as good as he gets. He's been playing the race card like a pro, first painting the Clintons as racist then tarring the entire Republican party -- "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?" "They" have done nothing of the sort -- at least not when it comes to Obama's name or the color of his skin. That's called "dissembling," and Obama excels at it.Here's another funny thing about negative campaigning: It can be educational. Political scientists have long noted the correlation between ads that contrast a candidate from his opponent and higher voter turnout. Ads that highlight a candidate's shortcomings can be very effective.Questions about Obama's experience, his background in Illinois politics, his lackluster voting record and his penchant for self-aggrandizement -- a Greek temple in the middle of Denver's Invesco Field? Hubris is a Greek word, too -- are legitimate subjects for discussion. McCain's ads mocking Obama as "The One" are effective for just that reason.Criticizing a candidate, especially a candidate as untested as Barack Obama, isn't negative. It's enlightening. No wonder Obama's campaign has tried so hard to appear above the fray, even as it gets down in the dirt.Meet the "new politics," same as the old politics.(Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog daily at http://www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and http://joelmathis.blogspot.com.)(Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog daily at www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and joelmathis.blogspot.com.)