Sunday, November 10, 2019
Negative Campaigning
In class, we learned about what caused many candidates to lose their presidential elections. The biggest loss was by Dukakis who was ahead in the polls by 18 percent and then still ended up losing the election. Dukakis claimed that his biggest mistake during his campaign was choosing not to go negative against Bush. The Bush campaign made up many lies about Dukakis regarding his intentions with criminals and his health and while Dukakis refuted these claims he never went negative which ultimately cost him the election. While negative campaigning is a cruel way to win an election it is also completely necessary. The reason that negative campaigning is so effective is because negative information is much more memorable than positive information. A candidate explaining why they would be a good President is much less entertaining than explaining the scandalous shortcomings of their opponents. And even if the negative information is not correct it is still out in the world and while many people may hear the attack fewer people hear the refute. While negatively political campaigns spread lies and do not focus on the actual qualifications of each candidate they have been a part of American culture since there was an America. Even people such as Hamilton and Jefferson as well as Adams and Jefferson attacked each other publically when they were competing for President. Negative campaigning is a good political strategy and even if there is almost no chance of it changing any time soon I believe that it is not the right way to campaign for a job especially one as important as President.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that negative campaigning is effective yet an unflattering quality in a potential president. However, it is not always just presidents that start this negative campaigning: in fact, a lot of negative campaigning comes from "polls". (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/upshot/push-polls-defined.html) During campaigns, push polls are conducted, which are less interested in understanding statistics and more in using loaded questions to sway voters (some of the most biased examples: would you still vote for ___ if you found out he was an abusive husband?). While this may not even be true, voters are later likely to associate the candidate with the lies the poll had written about him, not remembering that the question never explicitly said it was true. Negative campaigning surrounds all parts of presidential elections, but I agree with your point that, at the very least, presidential candidates should not have to slander another opponent to get votes. My biggest worry with negative campaigns is that this negativity doesn't just vanish after elections: it will continue into the presidency. Today, we see Trump slandering news stations that post unflattering articles about him ("its all fake news"). This is the same negative campaigning as when he was running for president, except now against anyone that says badly about him. While it is hard to win an election without negative campaigning, perhaps more public outcry about this strategy can motivate politicians on both sides of campaigns to focus more positively.
ReplyDeleteI think Trump is actually one of the greatest examples of this. Though the situation was different, Trump's cruel and memorable nicknames for Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe, Lyin' Ted stuck with voters more than his target's deconstruction of his policies. Trump's entire campaign was built on his vicious political attacks, and his negativity was more interesting than any of Hillary's textbook responses. I personally disagree with the idea that a negative strategy is wrong, mainly because our culture is inherently attracted to negativity and it makes sense to me that follows in politics too. For example, CInemasins, YMS, and many more, have made entire careers off of being negative. Hate videos are some of the most popular content online, and Biden, Warren, and Kamala's most popular tweets are all about how terrible Trump is. Making fun of people is our biggest source of entertainment in every medium (South Park, Youtube, comedians, politics, talk shows, etc) and right now, politics is a show, it makes sense it's lead figures engage their audience the same way as every other entertainer.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/going-negative-can-be-good-for-politics/