With the 2006 midterm elections heating up, Americans can expect to be barraged by negative campaign tactics. David Mark, former editor inchief of Campaign and Elections magazine, has written the book “Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006). The Examiner interviewed Mark to get a sense of the role of negative campaigning in modern politics, how it works and how it has evolved.
Q We always hear that political campaigns are so dirty nowadays. But, in many ways, they’re tame compared to elections in early American history. How has negative campaigning evolved over the years? Has it gotten worse? Or better?
A Campaign tactics are now more civil, genteel and refined than in the 19th century. Back then virtually no subject was off-limits, including mocking a candidate’s religion or going after their spouse: Andrew Jackson’s wife was said to have died of heartache after attacks on her during the rough and tumble 1828 election. That’s not to say that campaigns nowadays are soft and fuzzy — politics is a contact sport. But aggressive tactics usually stick to public policy issues and voting records.
Q As much as Americans express disdain for negative campaigning, does it work? And does it resonate with your average voter?
A It works under certain circumstances: If it plays into preconceived notions voters have about a candidate (many already thought John F. Kerry to be a wishy-washy flip-flopper, and Bush’s 2004 campaign against him confirmed that notion). Negative campaigning can also be effective if it brings out new, substantiated charges that voters have not heard of before. Academic research is split on the effects of negative campaigning. Some studies suggest it drives up voter turnout because it gets people angry and more interested in elections, while others conclude the practice turns people off from the election process and diminishes participation.
Q But is there some point at which negative campaigning can backfire? Can you give an example? And how can politicians know where that line is?
A Negative campaigning can easily backfire if it is not timed and executed skillfully — that’s why I consider it “art,” as suggested in the title. It often backfires when candidates bring out stale, tired charges about their opponent that have been aired in previous campaigns, like a long-ago drunk driving arrest or tax lien. Campaigns also need to understand the electorate they are trying to persuade. In large, media-driven states like California, Texas or New York many people get their political news through 30-second attack ads. But in other places where retail politics is practiced, candidates will be punished for going too negative. This happened in the 2004 Democratic Iowa Caucuses. Going into that contest, the front runners was thought to be former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri. Each went negative on each other through television ads, about the Iraq war, Medicare and other issues. Iowans generally practice a more civil brand of politics, and rejected these tactics. Dean and Gephardt finished third and fourth, respectively, and soon dropped out. That allowed Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards to swoop in with positive campaign tactics, and they became the national ticket.
Q What are some trademarks of ineffective negative campaigning?
A Basic factual errors and over-aggressive tactics that then become the story. Take Michael Steele, the Maryland lieutenant governor who will be the 2006 GOP Senate nominee. As his campaign got under way last year, staff members at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee began digging into his financial past. One worker probing his credit history pretended to be him, an illegal act, which Steele and Republicans are still making hay over. The tactics obscured what might otherwise have been a legitimate story and took it off the table.
Q How and why did negative campaigning accelerate after Sept. 11?
A Candidates were not content to label political opponents as wrong on foreign policy issues, but as soft and terrorism and even in league with the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. During the months immediately after Sept. 11, an u nprecedented level of bipartisan cooperation in Congress emerged, but that quickly fell away as the war on terror became another partisan issue like tax cuts and health care.
Q We often hear that Vietnam and Watergate made journalism more negative and skeptical. Did those two events also have a negative effect on campaigning?
A Yes, the rise of adversarial political reporting went hand-in-hand with developments in negative campaigning. Candidates found new outlets to leak damaging information to, particularly if they did not want to be associated with the charges themselves.
Q How has the Web played into negative campaigning?
A In several important ways. Web-only campaign videos are becoming increasingly important, as they are often harder-edged than conventional television spots. The Internet has also turned into a valuable fundraising tool for candidates. And blogs are increasingly becoming cudgels in negative campaigning, as anonymous posters can throw out just about any statement into the ether.
Q In your opinion, what is the most negative campaign ever waged in American history?
A There’s so many to choose from, but one that stands out recently was a 2004 House race in Texas, between Republican Rep. Pete Sessions and Democratic Rep. Martin Frost. The pair was thrown together in a Dallas-area district because of a redistricting plan meant to aid Republicans. Frost criticized Sessions for having engaged in a streaking incident in college. Sessions, meanwhile, went after Frost for scheduling a fundraiser with Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary, who in1969 had been convicted of “taking indecent liberties” with a 14-year-old girl. Frost slammed a vote by Sessions against new air passenger security rules after Sept. 11, and ran an ad with images of the World Trade Center in flames and the message, “Protect America. Say No to Pete Sessions.” Still, those tactics were ineffective, as Sessions won in the Republican-leaning district by 10 points.
Q Does negative campaigning lead to negative legislating? Or can politicians just let bygones be bygones once they’ve arrived in Washington?
A Sometimes a really tough campaign can effect how legislative business gets done. A lot of Democrats are still might angry at Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., over his 2002 television ad against then-Sen. Max Cleland, D, which showed pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I think that has permeated the legislative process to a degree.
From ‘Going Dirty’
“Few, if any candidates openly admit to negative campaigning. To office-seekers, criticizing an opponent’s voting record is comparative advertising, while spotlighting a rival’s marital infidelity or woeful personal finances are perfectly appropriate because it raises character issues for voters. What constitutes negative campaigning is usually a matter of perspective; tactics that to one voter seem misleading, mean-spirited, and immoral, can impart to important and relevant information about how the candidate would perform under the pressures of public office. Negative campaigning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.”
Patrick W. Gavin is The Examiner’s associate editorial page editor.
