The Intrigue of Negative Political Ads
Four reasons why they’re exciting.
In the past two weeks, the political world has been in uproar over two negative advertising campaigns, one from each party. First, President Obama released an ad attacking Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital. Then, a planned ad tying Obama to Reverend Jeremiah Wright leaked to the New York Times. I don’t need to analyze these ads and their meaning, because Anthony Resnick has already done so brilliantly. But I’m intrigued by negative ads—not just these two, but negative ads in general—for four reasons:
On this, there can be no debate. And it’s not just voters who hate them. Every politician since the beginning of time has complained about negative campaigning and character assassination. In the 2000 Republican primary, George W. Bush and John McCain squabbling over negative campaigning during a debate led to the crowd cheering Alan Keyes more enthusiastically than a crowd of people has probably ever cheered for Alan Keyes before or since. Romney disavowed the proposed Wright ad, which was met with a torrent of criticism so strong that everyone associated with the project backed away from it like it was a nuclear bomb. Newark Mayor Cory Booker criticized both the Wright ad and the Bain ad. But why? They had nothing in common except that they were both negative. An ad being negative alone should not be reason enough to hate it. This is silly. If an ad is untruthful (too many to name); or racist; or, at best, race-baiting (the proposed Wright ad; the infamous Willie Horton ad); or nonpertinent and stupid (Obama is like Paris Hilton!), then, yes, hate away. But the concept of shining a harsh light on one’s opponent is not something at which we ought to turn up our noses. As they say, politics ain’t beanbag.
For more of Ben Hoffman's examination of negative political ads, click here.
