Negative and Let Live

A common mantra this time every couple of years is how sick and tired people are of "negative politics" and "nasty attack ads" but if it didn't work, they wouldn't keep doing it. I'm astounded how much of simple politics escapes most people- the main things being that attack ads are meant to drive down turnout (so every time people tune out the process because of all those attacks ads they help prove the effectiveness of negative campaigning) and the mistaken notion that all "negative" attacks are of the same ilk. As long as ill-informed voters continue to make bad decisions or avoid the process altogether we won't see the changes we seek in our campaigns, our elections, and our government.

A simple fact of politics that many fail to grasp is the main purpose of the negative ad. Negative attacks are used primarily to try to convince voters who might otherwise consider the opponent that the candidate is somehow corrupt, incompetent, weak or lying, etc. Thus if your opponent is courting the women's vote you either run an ad talking about how weak they are on sex offenders if you're a Republican or how they want to control your uterus if you're a Democrat. Attack ads are meant to turn people off from the process by driving independent and undecided voters away from elections, thus making our modern political process into a contest where the side that can drive the largest turnout of their core constituency to the polls wins. Modern elections are almost entirely decided, not by the so-called "security moms" or "NASCAR dads" or the fence-sitting and indecisive moderates who mostly don't even pay attention to issues beyond today's talking points, but by the most enthusiastic supporters on either side. When Joe Six Pack and Judy Lunch Bucket turn off and tune out due to the mud slinging the media advisors working for the campaigns smile their crooked smiles and go back to their push polling and their direct mail slime operations.

A co-worker mentioned to me today that the only campaign commercials that focus on issues are the negative attack ads and I had to stop and realize that this appraisal was almost entirely true (the one exception that comes readily to mind in this campaign is Tom George's ads for his State Senate campaign focusing on the murder of a man at a Kalamazoo bus station and the bill that resulted- though, obviously this ad is short on hard hitting stances that might alienate voters- George might as well come out and pass a bill proclaiming kittens as soft and cuddly creatures or sunshine a warm and pleasant feeling).

The fact is that most campaigns rely only on two forms of advertising. One is the "bio" ad which I have previously railed against here which tells us which congregation the candidate belongs to, how many beautiful grandchildren they have and how long they've lived in our wonderful community but little in the way of actual substance. The bio ad might mention someone is "for good jobs" or "against more taxes" but these are usually just talking point with little in the behind them beside an attempt to keep voters from thinking too much about what it means and whether it's good for their family or the country. The other form is the attack ad which usually seeks to show the opponent as holding an unpopular position usually by whatever deceptive means are necessary such as taking one item out of an appropriations bill containing thousands of earmarks (such as Mike Bouchard has attempted to do in his attacks on Senator Stabenow despite the fact it was his own party's senior senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, who forced the "bridge to nowhere" upon us and it was his own party's Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, who allowed the measure to be added and the vote to take place with the item in the bill, and President George W. Bush who didn't veto the bill but signed it into law). However, sometimes these negative ads are actually illuminating since often candidates seem to prefer to talk in bland generalities about tough issues which might alienate people.

A disturbingly large number of people vote out of obligation without informing themselves on the issues. I too often hear from people in the last two weeks of a year-long campaign suddenly asking me about campaigns and issues without even a basic knowledge of the complex and difficult issues that stand before us which they should have spent years thinking about or at least a couple of spare hours of their lives, yet they seem perfectly willing and even compelled to go cast a vote based on about five minutes of thought in the last days of a campaign. These voters often go with "their gut" and end up voting for the person with the most money and the slickest ads who told the most comfortable lies. And on the endless cycles goes, leaving these clueless folks to wonder why government seems to broken.

Most people don't seem capable or willing to weed out what is an honest portrayal of the opponent's position and what is an unfair and borderline slanderous attack meant to distort a person's record or position. Politics, it is said, is a contact sport and people can and do get hurt. We have to expect candidates will say anything to get elected but it's up to us, the electorate, to call a fair fight and inform ourselves enough to call proper balls and strikes. A lot is at stake in each election and I ask people to consider if the negative ads they are seeing aren't actually the most substantial part of our current campaign process or if they're just spin meant to take your eye of the ball. If our government of the people, by the people and for the people seems broken, the fault, dear readers, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.