When the Nixon campaign in 1972 made use of the “three A’s” used to describe the politics of its opponent, George McGovern — “amnesty (for draft dodgers), abortion, and acid” — this offensive labeling was not necessarily meant to scare away McGovern’s die-hard supporters. They all were committed to vote for him regardless of persistent character attacks against “their guy.”
No, the three A’s were those emotional tweezers to deliver an additional motivational pinch (not even a punch) to enliven those Nixon supporters who were in favor of their candidate but still a bit lazy to go out and actually vote.
So cheap shots and smears actually worked? Really?
We answer these questions almost daily: What’s the point of going extremely negative, especially when it is next to impossible to change the minds of those who already made their choices? Expectedly, and what research also suggests, character attacks work because the negativity can sway a share of undecided voters. But what if there are no more of the undecided? Indeed, millions have already voted by absentee ballot. Among those who are planning to vote in person, there is almost no indication that they are going to change their minds as the elections loom on the horizon.
Yet here comes one of the least-talked-about electoral strategies. In close elections, you try to stir up your base, especially the remaining uncommitted-to-vote supporters. Those who are the least convinced, the least persuaded, and the least motivated — they can still cast their vote for your party and candidates if they are sufficiently motivated to show up to the polls. With election battles so close, especially in battleground states, every percentage point counts. As the Biden campaign resorts to the favorite tactic of front-runners, which is “do not make a dumb mistake,” the Trump campaign has tried to go negative all the way using a powerful approach: convince the idle and the unbothered that if the other side wins, something terrible will happen to them and to all.
According to the TTT or “toothpaste tube theory” in political psychology, there will always be an outcome from persistent pressure, just as when we squeeze a toothpaste tube, something will come out. Calling Joe Biden’s family a “criminal enterprise” and returning to the familiar chant of “lock him up” may be seen by some voters as extreme and ineffective. But this can be very effective among those who already support President Trump yet have little determination to vote. By attacking the opponent, you do not necessarily attract the independents; you rather mobilize your own uncommitted base.
“Toothpaste tactics” were freely used during presidential elections in the past. While these tactics weren’t always successful, there are many instances in which they did work. The insults, such as “an idiot,” “a buffoon,” or “mentally ill,” were regularly used as character attacks against U.S. presidential candidates over the past 200 years. An 1800 newspaper stated that with Thomas Jefferson as commander in chief, “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced.” This slanderous statement might have caused an angry reaction among Jefferson’s supporters, who could have ignored such publications. However, could they have sparked the motivation of some of Jefferson’s opponents to vote against him?
In 1964, the media called Republican presidential contender Nelson Rockefeller a “goddamned socialist” and a “wife-swapper.” He was not (he had just divorced). The labels “dictator,” “fascist,” “Marxist,” or “communist” did not mean that the targets of these name-callings were actually card-carrying members of extremist groups or parties. It did not matter. Such “toothpaste tactics” are about an emotional appeal, about squeezing any potential voter to get out of the house and vote.
The emotional squeeze of a character attack has its limits, however. There are cultural and political contexts within which we function as social beings. The 1800 attack smearing John Adams as having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force nor firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman,” if used today, would spell a disaster for most reputable networks and online sources. Al Smith, the Democratic presidential candidate of 1928, was ridiculed for his Irish background by the remark that the White House would smell like “corned beef, cabbage, and home brew.” Today, such ridicule would painfully backfire against those who launched it, much like Sen. David Perdue’s mocking taunt about Kamala Harris’s name at a recent Trump rally. Media outlets painted his statements not just as insensitive but as racist. But using “toothpaste tactics” to label the Biden family a criminal enterprise or hitting Trump with a “liar” tag is not a new low of contemporary politics. It has been done before.
As Slate’s John Dickerson wrote earlier this year, elections are about “choosing more than just a candidate.” They are for deciding on policies and principles. But both history and today’s politics show that the policies can still be chosen just on the basis of how a candidate is portrayed and seen. It seems there will always be “amnesty, abortion, and acid.”
Eric Shiraev is a political psychologist at George Mason University. Jennifer Keohane is a professor of communication at the University of Baltimore. Both are working as part of the Character Assassination and Reputation Politics research lab.
