Negative campaigns hurt voting

By Ben Tate

Campaign season is upon us once again, and candidates are turning to mass advertising to reach voters. I need a shovel to get through all the mud candidates are hurling.

This is nothing new; political candidates have attacked and smeared each other for as long as democratic elections have existed. What has changed, however, is the amount of time and resources politicians dedicate to attacking their opponents, and the intensity with which they do it. It is a continually worsening trend that is hurting the American political process.

Candidates in recent years have spent more time bashing their opponents than they have convincing us of their own strengths and abilities. Sure, that tells me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy, but it doesn't tell me why I should vote for the perpetrator of the mudslinging. This philosophy makes as much sense as someone walking into a car dealership and asking a salesperson why he or she should buy a certain car and hearing the response, "Because everyone else's cars suck."

Granted, some political ads do try to sell you on the ways their candidate will improve the system if elected, but it's only in contrast to the ways the other candidate would screw things up. Sometimes negative campaign ads, like the one that inspired this column, have absolutely nothing to do with their opponent's weaknesses or inability to lead, much less their own candidate's strengths.

The advertisement I am referring to is a 30 second television spot that is part of Phil Angelides' gubernatorial campaign. Angelides is the democratic challenger to incumbent Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In this commercial, a video clip is played of Governor Schwarzenegger endorsing President George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. The ad cites several ways in which the Bush Administration's policies have hurt America, while replaying the video clip ad nauseam. At the end of the commercial a narrator states, "Arnold Schwarzenegger is for George W. Bushâ?¦ is he for you?"

The ad is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with Angelides' qualifications, and it fails to justify why he should run a state that has the world's fifth largest economy. Such ads only serve to rally the loyal base of the party. They are war cries meant to fire up devoted party members. The abundance of attack-ads accomplish this goal quite well, but they also have unintended consequences. More than anything, they encourage voter apathy. Undecided, intelligent voters who tend to base their vote on the strength of the candidate's message are turned off by the kind of dirty politics these ads employ. This kind of campaigning allows candidates to avoid intelligent debate on key election issues.

When undecided voters and intelligent voters choose not to vote, it leaves the voting to those who are blindly party-loyal, a result harmful to the political process in California and the United States.

It is time for the American media and the general public to stop accepting negative campaigning. I'm tired of hearing about Bush's college exploits and Kerry's war record. We need to demand real answers from our candidates.

Ben Tate is a senior political science and economics double major.