The mud in the mailbox

I don’t have any scientific evidence to support this – although I’m looking forward to the post-election analyses – but it sure feels like political attack advertisements are tougher than ever this year.

Perhaps it’s not that they are qualitatively tougher (although that may be true), they just seem to significantly outnumber the positive advertisements. Here’s what a Sept. 25 New York Times article had to say about Democrat candidates’ early attacks on Republicans:

“Opposition research and attack advertising are used in almost every election, but these biting ads are coming far earlier than ever before, according to party strategists. The campaign has intensified in the last two weeks as early voting begins in several states and as vulnerable incumbents try to fight off an onslaught of influences by outside groups.”

From this article, I can see a few strategic reasons why we might be seeing so much negative advertising.

Early voting

Early voting has become super important. According to the Albuquerque Journal, early voting accounted for 40 percent of the ballots in the last governor’s race. Most campaign professionals assume early voting will increase, as more people get hip to it, perhaps cresting 50 percent this year. As a result of early voting’s increased popularity, candidates are scrambling to get their message in front of voters while they’re still making up their mind. This has increased the campaign season from two or three weeks to almost a full month (or more, depending on how much the seat is worth to the stakeholders).

Furthermore,  early voting has changed the tactics. Candidates used to be able to spend a few weeks articulating a positive narrative about themselves, often waiting until the last few days of the campaign before  they unleashed their attack advertising. Now, with early – essentially, ongoing – voting, candidates feel compelled to get their best shots in before voters have cast their ballot and the contest is decided.

Endangered incumbents

The New York Times article also points out that many more incumbents are in danger than usual. Incumbents expect challengers to go negative sooner than later; it’s the challenger’s job, after all,  to convince the voters why they should fire the person in office.

Typically, it’s better for the incumbent to tout his or her record and appear above the fray (perhaps, again, until the final few days). But these are not regular times. Voters, especially many of those key – but fickle – “independents,” would rather wave their torches and pitchforks than commit to either raising taxes or cutting spending.

At a time when politicians of both parties and governments of any size are so toxic to the public, the incumbent is compelled to preemptively tar the challenger before he or she can pick up any “newcomer” momentum. So we have a sort of shoot-out to see who can muddy whom the most in the mailboxes and on the airwaves.

More money than sense

Again, we’ll have to wait for the post-election analyses, but it seems like a reasonable  assumption that because of the recent Citizens United Supreme Court rulings, more money will be spent by third-party groups than ever before. Since this money is often anonymous and not tied directly to any candidate, it’s a perfect vessel for negative messaging against an opponent.

In fact, as we’ve seen, most of these groups have been quite willing to tell outright falsehoods that no campaign would dare publish. More money and less accountability has also likely resulted in more and nastier political advertisements than we’ve seen in a long time.

Implications

Aside from putting braces on the teeth of political consultants’ kids, this increase in negative mailing may have some unintended consequences. There is mounting speculation that all this negative advertising will repress the independent vote, a group that is perhaps more likely to be turned off by this “I’m rubber, you’re glue”-style campaigning.

If this is the case, that’s going to help Democrats in some seats, since the mercurial independents, who want to kick the new bums out too, may just decide to sit on their hands instead of vote for the Republican.

Another unintended consequence is that the negative advertising may unite and invigorate the otherwise uninspired Democrats. It’s harder to sit an election out when the other side misrepresents your worldview over and over again between must-see TV shows. Again, it’ll be hard to know the implications of all this negative mailing until after the dust that’s been kicked up during these final weeks settles.

A note of caution

I’ve worked in enough campaigns to have authorized one or two tough political advertisements. I believe it’s valuable for voters to understand how their candidates differ from one another. Still, if our goal is useful public discourse, then things have gone too far.

As has been covered on this site and others, the advertisements (from all sides) barely concern themselves with being truthful anymore. Few campaigns will even denounce the most scurrilous ones from third-party groups because they are afraid of offending constituents, however extremist.

I’m reminded of the moment in a 2008 presidential debate when John McCain corrected a woman who insisted that then-candidate Obama was an Arab. Furthermore, McCain corrected people for the rest of the campaign, even though he was often booed for his efforts. Why did he do this? It surely didn’t help his chances of being elected. I believe he did it because he understood that there would be a day when the campaign ended and the country would have to get to work on the big problems.

McCain wasn’t willing to allow his supporters to lie about Obama, even though it might have hurt his election chances. I admire that.

Furthermore, as someone who believes that our ability to increase freedom and access to opportunity for all Americans depends on productive civic discourse, I think our elected officials need to be careful about what they are willing to do or say to get elected. Many TEA party-style conservatives don’t value government so having a scoundrel in office is not as harmful to their claims about how we might secure a better future – cynical campaigning, after all, only confirms their worst accusations about politicians.

But we who believe in an engaged and effective government must be fierce advocates for truth and integrity from our politicians, and the larger political process. We must resist despairing over the process as it is, and strive to work for what it must become. I am well aware, however, in the practical world of politics, that negative advertisements are effective at winning elections.

Unfortunately, as long as our system permits gobs of money – much of it anonymous – to influence these races, we are in a tough spot. Perhaps this election season will be a catalyst for widespread reforms. Otherwise, as they say, we’ll get the government we deserve.

Nick Voges is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s Zeitgeist. E-mail him at nick@nmpolitics.net.