Where I Stand -- Mike O'Callaghan: Why do candidates use negative campaigning? Because it works

So you don't like negative and what you probably call "dirty" political campaigns? I hear this statement whenever the 1998 campaign is discussed. Of course, I heard the same charges in 1996 and several previous campaigns but the complaints have increased every year.

When congressional candidate Don Chairez was asked about the negative ads being run by him and his opponent Shelley Berkley, he gave an honest answer. "The first negative ads were run against my opponent," he admitted. He then quickly added that he had no control over those initial negative ads because they were paid for and run by the Republican Party. Those political ads resulted in Berkley firing back with her own negative ads paid for by the Democratic Party. The war was on and won't stop for almost another three weeks.

So who is responsible for those heated and very negative political ads? Probably, you, me and all the other voters if media consultants are correct. Negative ads and campaigns work and nobody likes to lose. I talked to several political consultants and asked their opinions.

One made it clear when saying, "While the public decries negative campaigning the fact is it works. Watergate, Viet Nam, Iran Contra, Monica Gate, Abscam, etc., have created an environment in which the voters find arguments of political misbehavior more credible than messages of statesmanship. The public tends to readily believe that their political leaders are self-serving and deceptive."

The same expert went on and took a close look at all of us when saying, "The American reading public prefers the National Enquirer to Time magazine, the viewing public is transfixed by Hard Copy more than 20/20 or Prime Time Live and the listening public prefers junk radio talk to KNPR, and GOTCHA Journalism is more prevalent information than news coverage. This attitude in America is well documented and leads political campaign teams to believe that they must conduct campaigns within this attitudinal framework. Campaigns are managed to maximize the effectiveness of the dollars spent. It is much less expensive to play on existing attitudes whether selling a product or a candidate than to change a consumer or voter environment." How does this evaluation of your thinking and reading habits make you feel?

Another successful political adviser sees today's political advertising much like the comparison of cars, houses and medicines we see on television. He almost made it sound respectable when saying, "Will negative or comparative campaigning stop? Absolutely not! Should it? No, not as long as the commercials that continue to tell us over and over again why AT&T is better than Sprint or Ford is better than Chevy remain effective. The consumer makes the distinction of what is right and what is wrong and buys accordingly. As long as the media does its job and points out to the voting public what is true and what is distortion. I have full confidence that the people will sort out the rest."

So how do you show your disgust with negative campaigning? Some critics have told us that voters oftentimes respond by not voting. A third political consultant took on this response in a magazine and repeated it for me. He wrote, "Often when you look at the voter turnout in districts where especially negative campaigns are waged, some of the people who go to the polls refuse to vote in that particular race. They leave it blank on their ballot, probably as a way of telling the candidates they disapprove of their tactics. But if that person normally would have supported the incumbent, then that non-vote is as good as a vote for the opponent and vice versa."

The political adviser gave a warning when adding, "So when you get turned off by all those horrible mail pieces and television ads and decide not to vote, remember: you may be doing exactly what the producer of those negative messages wants you to do."

What it all comes down to is our willingness to allow negative campaigns to determine the outcome of elections one after another. The media and political experts have figured out our reading and watching habits and are using them the same way they sell other goods by tearing down the competing products. Deciding what person will represent us in public office in the same manner we select what car to buy or food to eat doesn't say much for our voting habits.

archive