On "Going Negative"
(Yesterday I sent this out to my email list. It resulted in several emails back and forth, so I thought I'd post it and see if anybody wanted to comment...)
I can tell a challenger candidate is in trouble the minute I hear him say, "Matt, I'm not gonna' do any of that negative political stuff. I'm just gonna' put my resume out there and let the voters decide." He is in trouble because (until you give them a reason to do otherwise) voters will continue re-electing an incumbent.
The truth is that elections are about choices and you must give the voters a reason to vote for you -- and a reason to "fire" the incumbent.
Now let me say right here that I do not condone unethical campaigning. This includes lies, smears, and the like. What I do relish, however, is good old fashioned hardball politics where the voters are given enough information to choose who will represent them. That's Representative Democracy at its best.
Of course, as soon as you start doing this, your opponent will accuse you of "going negative." According to liberal professor George Lakoff, John Kerry's mistake was that he listened to these critics:
George Lakoff's opinion is certainly not unique. In fact, here are some other respected opinions regarding "negative campaigning":
-Susan Estrich manager of the 1988 Dukakis campaign) - "Candidates engage in negative campaigning because it works."
-Charles Krauthammer (pundit): "It is easy to discount advertising on the grounds that no one could believe it...Can anyone really believe that beer makes men attractive to women? Yet that pitch continues to be made, year in and year out, for the simple reason that it works. So does negative political advertising."
Why elect Reagan in 1980? Because Jimmy Carter was too weak. Why elect Clinton in 1992? Because it was time for a change, and because (so they said) George H.W. Bush had gotten out of touch. Why elect you instead of your incumbent? (It's your turn to fill in the blank).
The bottom line is this: If you are a challenger you must be willing to attack your opponent's record. To me, that's not "negative," it's "comparison advertising." If you are not willing to do this, you might want to reconsider whether or not you really want to run for political office.
Source Notes: George Lakoff's comment came from an interview in Start Making Sense, Turning the lessons of election 2004 into winning progressive politics. All other quotes all are from Crowded Airwaves, Campaign Advertising in Elections.
I can tell a challenger candidate is in trouble the minute I hear him say, "Matt, I'm not gonna' do any of that negative political stuff. I'm just gonna' put my resume out there and let the voters decide." He is in trouble because (until you give them a reason to do otherwise) voters will continue re-electing an incumbent.
The truth is that elections are about choices and you must give the voters a reason to vote for you -- and a reason to "fire" the incumbent.
Now let me say right here that I do not condone unethical campaigning. This includes lies, smears, and the like. What I do relish, however, is good old fashioned hardball politics where the voters are given enough information to choose who will represent them. That's Representative Democracy at its best.
Of course, as soon as you start doing this, your opponent will accuse you of "going negative." According to liberal professor George Lakoff, John Kerry's mistake was that he listened to these critics:
"(Kerry's) polls told them that the people don't like negative campaigns. It was foolish to listen to that. You cannot be quiet while they make you out to be a villain. You have to find the ways to explain the positive attributes of your candidate, while you campaign negatively about the other candidate."
George Lakoff's opinion is certainly not unique. In fact, here are some other respected opinions regarding "negative campaigning":
-Roger Stone(Republican consultant) - "Voters will tell you in focus groups that they don't like negative ads, but they retain the information so much better than the positive ones."
-Susan Estrich manager of the 1988 Dukakis campaign) - "Candidates engage in negative campaigning because it works."
-Charles Krauthammer (pundit): "It is easy to discount advertising on the grounds that no one could believe it...Can anyone really believe that beer makes men attractive to women? Yet that pitch continues to be made, year in and year out, for the simple reason that it works. So does negative political advertising."
Why elect Reagan in 1980? Because Jimmy Carter was too weak. Why elect Clinton in 1992? Because it was time for a change, and because (so they said) George H.W. Bush had gotten out of touch. Why elect you instead of your incumbent? (It's your turn to fill in the blank).
The bottom line is this: If you are a challenger you must be willing to attack your opponent's record. To me, that's not "negative," it's "comparison advertising." If you are not willing to do this, you might want to reconsider whether or not you really want to run for political office.
Source Notes: George Lakoff's comment came from an interview in Start Making Sense, Turning the lessons of election 2004 into winning progressive politics. All other quotes all are from Crowded Airwaves, Campaign Advertising in Elections.
posted by Matt Lewis at 10:07 AM
Subscribe
<< Home