Posted May 3, 2006 by Meredith McGehee

Three Reasons for Positive Campaigns

In his response to my CLCblog.org commentary on “Stand By Your Ad” provisions Bob Bauer suggests that concern about negative campaigning is misguided, and that attempts to provide incentives for more “positive” campaigning are yet again examples of reformers run amok.

Certainly, negative campaigning has been prevalent in American politics since the beginning of the Republic and will continue to thrive because these attack ads are seen as effective.  The nation has survived, for example, the rampant rumors of out-of-wedlock children (Grover Cleveland) and over-indulgent drinking (Ulysses S. Grant) that were part of past presidential campaigns, to say nothing of vicious attacks on Presidents Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt from their adversaries.

So, why the concern about negative campaigning now?

First, mass media, and television in particular, have magnified the effect of negative campaigning.  Television, with its combination of visuals, sound and text, is more powerful, more pervasive and more affecting to its viewers than its predecessor media.

Second, negative campaigning is a problem to the extent that it diminishes participation.  When potential voters are turned off – when they decide that the choices are both unworthy and therefore they won’t participate in our political system  – our democracy is weakened.  There is significant evidence that modern media campaigns do just this—and are intended to.  Depression of likely voters is a real weapon in today’s campaigns.

Third, there is no attempt to censor speech or penalize speech in the “stand by your ad” laws.  These transparency measures are the opposite of the “nanny state” – the strawman that Bauer creates so he can rail against it.  The “Stand By Your Ad” laws simply ensure that voters know who is saying what.  Then, voters can make up their own minds.  It is true that the candidate has to acknowledge approving the ad—rather than hiding behind  the small print disclaimer, but he or she can still deliver their full message.  What these requirements MAY encourage—I hope so but it is up to the candidates—is a fuller engagement with voters—actual discussion rather than just attack phrases and ominous music.  That is not a bad goal for a democracy.