Mike Parker: Negative political ads: A disgusting tradition
One of the worst issues I endure during political campaigns is the barrage of negative TV ads. Sometimes, let’s add a voting option for all offices: “None of the above.”
Today’s political campaigns seem more focused on why I should NOT vote for a certain candidate than on why I SHOULD vote for the candidate whose committee is running the ads.
Negative political advertising, often referred to as “mudslinging,” involves candidates highlighting the unfavorable aspects of their opponents. This tactic attempts to sway public perception by focusing on an opponent’s voting record, political affiliation, or personal life. The goal is to shift voter support to a candidate who doesn’t seem to have the other candidate’s character flaws.
Sadly, negative campaigning is nothing new. In fact, it has a long history in this country. One example is Philip Richard Fendall II. By 1828, Fendall had already made a national name for himself, though he was only 34. He had practiced law in his hometown of Alexandria, Virginia, and he edited a newspaper in nearby Washington, D.C. He also served as a clerk in the U.S. State Department.
Fendall was active in Whig Party politics. He developed a close friendship with Henry Clay, one of the era’s most important politicians.
When John Quincy Adams lost the 1828 presidential election to Democrat Andrew Jackson, Fendall lost his position in the State Department because of his friendship with Clay and his party affiliation.
The 1828 election was the nastiest the country had yet seen, with Democrats accusing Adams of a “corrupt bargain” with Clay to win the 1824 election and of misusing public funds for the White House.
Whigs attacked the morality of Jackson’s personal life, his involvement in the slave trade, and especially his military record, charging him with cruelty to both his own soldiers and to Native Americans. Jackson was even falsely accused of being a cannibal following one battle with Native Americans.
As technology evolves, so do the attacks. Some political advertisements now use artificial intelligence to create images, voices, and messages targeting candidates. These ads look real, but most are just clever fakes.
Why do campaigns keep going negative?
According to two political veterans from opposite sides of the aisle, the answer is simple: negative advertising works. While many voters find the deluge of negative campaign ads annoying, experts say those communications play to how human brains work.
Jay Revell owns Revell Media and is an adjunct instructor in Florida State University’s Master’s in Applied American Politics and Policy program. He teaches a course about political campaigns. He says negative political ads prey on humans’ preference to avoid bad outcomes.
According to Revell, we tend to be biased toward negativity. We remember negatives better. Negatives elicit emotional reactions, and those emotions tend to stick with us more than facts, figures, and policy points.
“It’s just a lot easier to remember the two or three reasons you don’t like a candidate versus the long list of reasons you should like a candidate,” Revell said.
That same principle drives much of the media’s focus on negative news: people don’t enjoy hearing it, but that kind of information is more likely to stick in their memories and grab their attention.
I’d rather candidates tell me their stance on issues and give me a reason to vote FOR them than bash an opponent with reasons why I shouldn’t vote for them.
Who is going to change?
Probably “none of the above.”
Mike Parker is a columnist for the Neuse News. You can reach him at mparker16@gmail.com.
