At the Democratic National Convention last week, it became clear that the Democrats are messaging on character. In former first lady Michelle Obama’s speech on Monday night, she emphatically argued that the United States is “a nation that’s underperforming, not simply on matters of policy but on matters of character.”
She targeted her attack later, saying that “Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country. He has had more than enough time to prove that he can do the job, but he is clearly in over his head.” She paused, then finished, “It is what it is.”
As a characteristic of human thinking, we tend to believe in the uniqueness of our time. This mindset dominates our discussion of politics, too. We assume that we live during the nastiest, ugliest, and most uncivilized period of American politics. Are the nonstop character attacks in presidential politics and elections worse than ever?
Not really, no.
In fact, vicious character attacks against presidential candidates are as old as campaigns themselves. During the 1800 presidential campaign, pamphlet writers for the rivals John Adams and Thomas Jefferson openly smeared the opposite candidate. Insults such as “hypocrite,” “criminal,” “tyrant,” “hideous hermaphroditical character,” “libertine,” and “anarchist” represent just a short list of what was written or publicly said. Abraham Lincoln six decades later was mercilessly attacked in papers and pamphlets with mockeries calling him an “ape,” a “baboon,” a “monster,” an “idiot,” and a “cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse-swapper, and the night man.”
A rich and growing database of character attacks that our research group has been accumulating shows that character assassination is not limited to personal insults or cheap shots. For centuries, character attacks have involved deliberate misquoting, gross exaggerations, anonymous lies, accusations of immorality, conspiracy rumors, falsifications, or even vandalism against presidents’ images.
Campaigning is an art of calculation and intuition. It seems a simple task: As a candidate, you design a platform, explain it to the voter, campaign on your message, and try to get elected. Sure, you can criticize your opponent’s policy priorities. So why would you attack other candidates’ character and personality? The answer is straightforward: because character attacks work.
Why? Character attacks are effective because they first and foremost create confusion among the public. When fake letters attributed to George Washington were published in 1776, they cast him as a cowardly, scared, and neurotic man. The authors of these fakes did not try to hurt the future president emotionally. Their goal was to discourage his supporters within the Army and among the population by portraying Washington as spineless and morally weak.
Character attacks can also sway the undecided. When Franklin D. Roosevelt’s opponents relentlessly attacked him in 1944 for the alleged inappropriate use of the U.S. Navy for personal business, such as taking care of his dog Fala, the goal was not to “convert” FDR supporters but to scoop a few uncommitted voters. If a voter is uncertain, even a small allegation could help in creating a commitment.
Character attacks can also mobilize the base of the attacking side. They may appear unpleasant, wrong, and even disgusting in the eyes of many, but if tailored to people already opposed to a candidate, they can work. George H.W. Bush in 1992 was persistently ridiculed as being aloof and out of touch with ordinary people after he had been visibly amazed by an electronic scanner in a supermarket. Opponents thought that if this old man does not know how scanners work, how could he possibly tackle national problems? Research shows that supporters tend to ignore the attacks against their candidates. Opponents, on the other hand, get more encouraged to vote their way.
A candidate’s origin, gender, social status, religion, professional affiliation, and private life are all easy themes of character attacks. Using an attack to exploit a candidate’s family issues, past relationships, or behavioral traits, including mental health, could be effective, too. Presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama experienced plenty of such attacks.
With a few people here and a few people there, a sliver of doubt in an unsure supporter or an undecided voter caused by a character attack may affect these peoples’ voting preferences and intentions. Even the smallest decline of public support for a candidate or increase of support for another can be judged as a character-attack success.
Character attacks, then, as are old as American democracy itself. As the conventions continue, we’ll undoubtedly see more character attacks but also more attempts to shore up Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s character later. Michelle Obama, for example, described Biden this way, “He is a profoundly decent man, guided by faith … He will tell the truth and trust science.” Will the Republicans focus on character, too? Will they continue attacking Biden or guard President Trump’s reputation against the attacks? We will find out this week.
Eric Shiraev is a professor of political science 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.
