Do Negative Campaign Ads Work?

Do negative campaign ads actually work? Every election cycle we hear the pollsters and pundits ask this same question over and over again. One would think that there is a clear, definitive answer, but perhaps it's not such a simple question.

Speaking for myself, negative campaign ads turn me off. Although, I have to admit that it depends somewhat on whether it's my candidate that's doing the negative campaigning - and if the allegations are true, at least, in my perception.

This election cycle is proving to be one of the worst for negative campaigning. In my state there are several campaigns currently underway, including a senatorial race in which the Republican incumbent of 20+ years actually endorsed an ad accusing his opponent of murder.

Then there's the presidential campaign ads. I will have to say that while both Republican and Democratic candidates have endorsed negative campaign ads, there is a difference in their substance and style. The Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, has endorsed ads attacking the policies of his Republican opponent, John McCain. I tend to regard that as fair game, even though I dislike negative ads. I'd much rather watch an ad that tells me what a candidate's platform is, although I think that's become an archaic campaign tool that doesn't get nearly enough play in modern politics.

The Republican candidate, John McCain, on the other hand, has resorted to more personal attacks ads against his opponent. These are the sort of negative ads that really turn me off. They turn me off because I regard them as "smoke and mirrors" - they are meant to confuse and even instill fear and loathing in voters for the "other." McCain's ads are rife with suggestions and outright accusations that Obama is a terrorist, a Muslim, antiamerican, unpatriotic, naive, against the middle class, and more.

Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, has hurled many of these accusations unabashedly. In fact, in one interview, she accused Obama of befriending domestic terrorists, loosely defined as those who commit illegal and harmful acts against innocent human beings. However, when pressed to further specify her definition of "domestic terrorist", she was quick to point out that in her view, individuals who bomb abortion clinics and harm or even kill workers or clients are not included in her definition of "domestic terrorist." I find that not only curious, but dangerous, because that means that to Sarah Palin, anyone who works or makes an appointment at an abortion clinic are not "innocent human beings." According to Palin's definition, injuring or killing these people is merely "unacceptable." But it's not domestic terrorism. I must disagree.

What bothers me most, I think, is that there are so many willing Americans who actually believe negative ads. For the most part, I think these are people who aren't able to think for themselves, first and foremost. These are individuals who would rather be told what to think because it's easier than having to sort fact from fiction themselves. It's just too much trouble. So they look to the person or persons that they most identify with, usually those that look or talk like them, and just go with what they're told. Second, I think that people who respond to negative attack ads are people who react to their emotions rather than act upon their thoughts. Third, ignorant and uneducated people seem to respond to ads that appeal to their emotions more so than those who are more knowledgeable and educated. I believe there is a critical thinking element that is missing in the ignorant and uneducated, and it is to these people that negative attack ads are primarily directed.

But this election cycle has seen the most egregious negative ads in modern history. Fact checkers have found that McCain's ads and Palin's accusations are unfounded. They are either outright lies or they are distortions of the truth. But will most people take the trouble to check out whether this dishonorable duo are telling voters the truth or lying to them? I have my doubts.

I have to say that I have seen John McCain reduced to a new low. His pathetic, whining attempts to belittle and denigrate Barack Obama have only induced me to delve deeper into Obama's proposed policies and I have lost all respect for McCain. I am also troubled by his ultimate lack of judgment in his pick of a running mate. While McCain insists that Obama is not ready to lead, McCain himself is living proof that he is not capable of picking a qualified running mate, one who presumably might become president should something happen to McCain, which, given his age and cancerous medical history, is a distinct possibility.

Palin reminds me of a member of some high school clique. I'm sure everyone know the kind of gal I'm talking about - the ones who were the "popular" girls in high school, and usually the ones that made fun of and were often downright cruel to the "ugly, fat, and unpopular" girls. That seems to be Palin's mentality, and that's fine, I guess, but it's not becoming or befitting a Vice President. (Of course, Cheney's "fuck you" remark on the senate floor was also unbecoming, so maybe this is just a Republican thing....) What is troubling about Palin is that she actually believes that vp's "control" the senate. Then again, given the last eight years, she might be more right than wrong. Republicans no longer seem to consider our country's Constitution, but rather seem to be wont to make their own laws.

But back to the negative ads - I haven't seen any negative personal attacks on McCain from the Obama campaign. And there could be, if they wanted to take the same low road as their Republican opponents. For example, how about the fact that McCain never went to college? Not having the benefit of a college education, how qualified is he to be President? Does he have the intellectual capacity for the job? The fact that McCain is a military man who advocates the same kind of "force mentality" as G.W. Bush reminds me of a warning by Repubican Dwight D. Eisenhower about the "military industrial complex." That might make a good ad, but I don't see Obama stooping to that, or to the fact that McCain was an adulteror who abandoned his first wife, who remained faithful during the 5+ years that McCain was a POW, only to have him return home to run around on her with his rich mistress, Cindy - now his wife. Or how about the fact that Cindy McCain has a problem with drug addiction? Even better, an ad touting McCain's problem with "anger management." What about the fact that McCain's cancer might come back, making him an irresponsible, undependable choice for President? All of these I would consider to be negative personal attack ads - but Obama chooses the high road and refuses to consider running them.

Because Obama chooses to attack McCain on his policies, which is fair game, I have more respect for Obama. Obama has shown himself to be intelligent (he did go to college), thoughtful, calm, and confident. These are all qualities which I believe are needed for the position of President of the United States. The last thing we need at this point in our history is someone who is unprincipled, rash, emotional, angry, and unstable - all those things which I now believe McCain to be.

I believe that most people who can think for themselves, those people for whom rational thought, moral values, common decency, and diplomacy are valued ideals, will conclude, as have I, that Obama is the better choice - and I daresay, the better man. For these people, I believe McCain's negative ads will have diminished his stature on the political stage forevermore.

But for the ignorant, the uneducated, the over-emotional, and the downright stupid, I'm afraid McCain and Palin's "dog and pony show" will prevail. Perhaps these people are incapable of rational thought. It is inconceivable to me that McCain and Palin's disrepectful, dishonorable, and often disgusting behavior actually appeals to what should be mature, decent individuals.

But here's a thought. Since Palin's husband is one of the leaders of a group that wants Alaska to secede from the Union (aka the United States - yes, this is true) - perhaps all those misguided individuals who believe the vile vomit coming out of McCain and Palin's mouths could move to Alaska. Then, perhaps we could let Alaska secede, with McCain and Palin as President and Vice President. Unfortunately, Alaska deserves better.

So, don't be fooled. Negative campaign ads will probably never go away altogether; but I sincerely hope that one day soon legislation will be passed that prohibits, or at least greatly curtails, the type of negative campaign ads that can be produced. Personal attack ads should be prohibited altogether, because the American people deserve better.