Social Policy in Ontario

The democratic danger of political attack ads

Posted on April 18, 2013 in Governance Debates

—

TheStar.com – opinion/commentary – If negative advertising is so effective, maybe politicians should ask themselves why other big advertisers don’t employ the same tactics.
Apr 18 2013. By: Allan Gregg

Since Lyndon Johnson launched “the daisy ad” — accusing his presidential-race rival Barry Goldwater of capriciously threatening nuclear war — negative advertising has become commonplace in politics.

So commonplace in fact that, almost half a century later, on the heels of yet another volley of Conservative attack ads against another new Liberal leader, Canada’s “national” newspaper, the Globe and Mail, is now exhorting Justin Trudeau to counterattack and “fight fire with fire or look weak.”

For decades, political operatives have defended the practice of focusing on your opponent’s weaknesses, rather than your strengths, as a legitimate part of democratic choice. The Globe echoes this sentiment: “Isn’t politics about showing why you’re a better choice than your opponent? That implies both the positive and the negative.” But the Globe goes even further than the practitioners, claiming that “the notion of rising above negativity feels false to what politics are really about . . .” This view of “what politics are really about” and the role that negative advertising plays in it, is not only callow, it is dangerous and wrong.

Not just part of democratic choice, attack ads are also defended for the simple reason that they work. Of course they work. They play to — and I believe feed — the public’s general cynicism toward the political system and distrust of politicians. Sad but true, a message that states “politician A is a crook” is far more likely to be believed than one that claims “politician B is a paragon of virtue.” But using this justification implies that the only practice of politics and role for politicians is to secure short-term electoral gain over your opponent.

If negative advertising is so effective, maybe the media and politicians should ask themselves why other big advertisers (who are far more experienced and savvy) do not employ these same tactics. Just like the electoral process, it is safe to assume that McDonald’s wants to take market share from Burger King. They also know that the quickest and most immediate way of doing this would be to launch an ad campaign that claimed their competitor’s product contained botulism. Burger King could neutralize the McDonald’s advantage by countering that Big Macs are rife with E. coli.

This attack and counterattack might “work” to the extent that it would affect market share but it is not employed by McDonald’s and Burger King because they know it will destroy the category and pretty soon no one would ever buy a hamburger again. In other words, they are smart enough to know that the business they are in is not just about taking market share from the other guy — it’s about making consumers believe in eating hamburgers.

So while focusing on your opponent’s weakness rather than your own virtues might lead to a short-term electoral advantage, over time it will create a cascade of political cynicism. If you say “politician A is a crook” often enough, it is only a matter of time before the public comes to believe that all politicians are crooks. That is what is happening now and these are the seeds that defenders of negative advertising are sewing.
We would be wise to remember that politics is not a blood sport and that “what politics are really about” is not bludgeoning your opponent until they cannot stand.

For good or ill, politics is the process by which we organize civil, democratic society. It is used to allocate a nation’s scarce resources. Through it, we confer a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Because of it, we are able to represent the wishes of the majority and at the same time protect the rights of the minority. And at bottom, politics creates a state that has the potential to do immense good or infinite harm and, as such, we all have a vested interest that the best and brightest and only those who are motivated by the public good are encouraged to enter public life.

In the very same way, those who believe that this is “what politics are really about” have a responsibility to draw attention to its virtues and not just its shortcomings.
Allan Gregg is chair of Harris/Decima. From 1979 to 1993 he was the official pollster of the Progressive Conservative party and has participated in more than 50 central election campaigns on three continents.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/04/18/the_democratic_danger_of_political_attack_ads.html >

Tags: ideology, participation, rights, standard of living

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 18th, 2013 at 11:14 am and is filed under Governance Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.