Negative Campaigning

A lot of people have said they're tired of the rhetoric currently flowing across the airwaves from campaign to campaign, and I agree. I'm tired of it, and I'm disappointed. But never surprised. As much as I sometimes wish the legislators would outlaw the practice, I know this is an impossibility.

The fact of the matter is, negative campaigning works. Why it works--when we all know how often politicians tell the truth, especially during a campaign, and especially about the other guy--is beyond me. No one likes it. For starters, those of us on the opposite side of the ideological divide are further ostracized from the offending opponent (and potential victor). Furthermore, it breeds distrust and bipartisanship. So it's really disappointing to see negative campaigning come out from these two candidates: one who has a history of crossing the aisle, and the other who had run on the idea of bringing people together.

However, it is rather humourous to me when people in one camp rage against the attacks against their candidate, but ignore (and often support) the attacks going towards the other candidate. It is mind-boggling how obtuse this is. If McCain often lies about about his opponent (and he does), is it conceivable, in some crazy plot to stay competitive, the Obama lies about McCain too? (Um, he does).

Again, the shame of the situation is that it has to happen at all. I suppose it's just poor strategy to ignore a well-known and highly-effective tool. Still, it would be nice if someone took the upper hand. Unfortunately, if your opponent (or your opponent's supporters) doesn't take the upper hand, you will have to fight fire with fire, or risk being swift-boated, as John Kerry was in the 2004 election.

The vicious cycle of negative campaigning begins with the candidate who's behind, and I make no secret that I believe John McCain started it this time around. With the Democrats favoured to win from early on, John had to attack Obama's weaknesses, and so he did. And Obama, in order to level the playing field and prevent himself from getting swift-boated, had to fire back. It's a shame, but once the gloves are off, you have to decide if you're going to run, slap, or punch back.

That's not to say that the Democrats don't know how to put out negative ads. Just look at the primaries for the most recent example of Democratic lies.

But if John McCain is going to try to tie Obama to, say, Tony Rezko (an exaggeration, to be kind), then does Obama have any choice but to exaggerate McCain's ties to the Keating 5 Scandal?

One thing seems certain (and I am not above this), if you favour a particular candidate, you will more readily swallow the half-truths and slander about the other candidate, and will (justly, but also reflexively) label the same half-truth about your candidate as a political smear. One thing is for certain, there is plenty of smear to go around.