Spring Break
We make them work
Jon Dougherty
Issue date: 9/16/08 Section: Opinion
If Thomas Jefferson were to be elected president, he would bring into the White House his slave mistress and "murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will all be openly taught and practiced."
Should the nation select Andrew Jackson as its next leader, they would be choosing the offspring of "a common prostitute brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children; General Jackson is one!"
Grover Cleveland, should he be tapped to lead the nation, would bring moral shame upon America as "the father of an illegitimate child." The same was said about John McCain in 2000.
These are just a few paltry examples of the negative campaigning throughout U.S. history. Recently, the label of "dirtiest campaign ever" is being applied to the current political race. Simply looking at the few examples listed here, I'd say the current contest is fairly pleasant and cordial.
Negative campaigning is one of those proclaimed ills of politics that turns voters off, causing them to either dislike or ignore the process. As Americans, tactics undertaken to trash an individual, even one with whom we may not agree, reeks of unfair advantage and a dirty fight.
Then why do they work? Why have they persisted?
Research conducted by political scientists from institutions like the University of Michigan, University of Virginia and Stanford University have repeatedly revealed that many voters retain information received in negative campaigns. Some make that information the basis for their voting decision.
People susceptible to negative advertising are generally less interested in politics and seek out less information regarding the candidates.
That is what makes negative campaigning so effective: if you haven't seen or heard much else, the few ugly things you may have heard about a candidate could play a larger factor in whom you choose.
This is not to say all people function this way. As individuals, we can do our part to be less influenced by negative campaigns by actually seeking out the truth.
Did Obama call Sarah Palin a pig last week or were his remarks politically unwise, yet taken out of context? Does McCain have a gaggle of Washington lobbyists running his campaign or does he truly embody the maverick persona? Does Obama have lobbyists working for him as well?
Given their long history, negative campaigns are here to stay. Some folks say they are an essential part of the process; most agree they are inextricable.
But does any of this stuff have any bearing on what either of these men will do as president?
I do not think so; I believe both men are committed to strengthening and protecting the United States.
The question we should answer individually is "with whose vision of America do I most agree?" If we can answer this for ourselves, after casting off the chaff of the campaign, the choice becomes simple.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
Should the nation select Andrew Jackson as its next leader, they would be choosing the offspring of "a common prostitute brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children; General Jackson is one!"
Grover Cleveland, should he be tapped to lead the nation, would bring moral shame upon America as "the father of an illegitimate child." The same was said about John McCain in 2000.
These are just a few paltry examples of the negative campaigning throughout U.S. history. Recently, the label of "dirtiest campaign ever" is being applied to the current political race. Simply looking at the few examples listed here, I'd say the current contest is fairly pleasant and cordial.
Negative campaigning is one of those proclaimed ills of politics that turns voters off, causing them to either dislike or ignore the process. As Americans, tactics undertaken to trash an individual, even one with whom we may not agree, reeks of unfair advantage and a dirty fight.
Then why do they work? Why have they persisted?
Research conducted by political scientists from institutions like the University of Michigan, University of Virginia and Stanford University have repeatedly revealed that many voters retain information received in negative campaigns. Some make that information the basis for their voting decision.
People susceptible to negative advertising are generally less interested in politics and seek out less information regarding the candidates.
That is what makes negative campaigning so effective: if you haven't seen or heard much else, the few ugly things you may have heard about a candidate could play a larger factor in whom you choose.
This is not to say all people function this way. As individuals, we can do our part to be less influenced by negative campaigns by actually seeking out the truth.
Did Obama call Sarah Palin a pig last week or were his remarks politically unwise, yet taken out of context? Does McCain have a gaggle of Washington lobbyists running his campaign or does he truly embody the maverick persona? Does Obama have lobbyists working for him as well?
Given their long history, negative campaigns are here to stay. Some folks say they are an essential part of the process; most agree they are inextricable.
But does any of this stuff have any bearing on what either of these men will do as president?
I do not think so; I believe both men are committed to strengthening and protecting the United States.
The question we should answer individually is "with whose vision of America do I most agree?" If we can answer this for ourselves, after casting off the chaff of the campaign, the choice becomes simple.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
krys
Krystal
posted 9/16/08 @ 11:06 AM EST
I completely agree with this article. I only have one problem I can't agree wholeheartedly with either one of them. I love some points from each of them, so until I know which one I would rather have in office I am sticking with third party. (Continued…)
Post a Comment