Stop Hating, Start Campaigning
Enjoying my burrito at Las Olas Taqueria this family weekend, I looked up at the silent TV monitor blasting four words: "Say No to Shaheen." Despite my lack of investment in the New Hampshire state senate race, the message burned in my mind as my parents and I drove past sign after sign proclaiming "Shaheen for Senate" in white block letters.Further digging revealed that the TV ad I had seen cost $570k this week alone, while it cost $3 million on its first day of airing. All in all, the New Hampshire senate race has been the ninth most expensive senate race this election season, with more than $30 million spent on campaigning, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Much of this money has been spent on negative advertising from both the incumbent Shaheen (D) as well as Scott Brown (R). Despite the massive sums spent by both candidates, their popularity has not changed by a significant amount since June, calling into question both the effectivity of negative campaigning and its effect on the political process.Historically, negative ads have proven their worth as an effective campaigning method. The most famous example of this, of course, is the "Daisy Girl" ad that Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign team aired in the 1964 presidential election. The ad, which attacked his opponent, Barry Goldwater for his willingness to use nuclear force, remains in the minds of many as a successful move, despite its immediate withdrawal.The most worrying part of the mudslinging in today's advertising is, however, not the frequency or the intensity of advertisements. A quick comparison between today’s "Spelling Bee" ad and the "Daisy Girl" will show that the intensity has actually decreased with time. What is much more troubling is the people releasing the messages. With ads released almost exclusively by PACs, the agenda seems exclusively to destroy the "opposing" candidate, with no alternative posed. When I walked away from Las Olas this Sunday, what remained with me was not that Scott Brown was a better alternative. I walked away only thinking negative thoughts about Shaheen. When potential voters are bombarded with negative images of politicians without being shown another choice, they may find it difficult to be turned on to the political process. Left with only negative images of both politicians, nobody wants to choose between the lesser of two evils to represent their state.Proponents of negative campaigning claim that more information about candidates will increase citizen involvement in politics. Though negative campaigning can be good in small doses, the bombardment of negative imagery that today’s voters must go to not only polarizes them on the political spectrum but removes them from that spectrum altogether. Scott Brown, the challenger, has run 12 ads, three quarters of which are negative. Shaheens’ ads boast a similarly high percentage.Today’s campaigns are, unfortunately, a race to the bottom that leaves none the better. Politicians do not gain significant margins, voters do not exercise their right to be a part of the political process and civic education and involvement plummets. None of these are good for a political stage in which civic engagement is dangerously low already. In moving towards a healthier political agenda, we should encourage politicians to tone down the negative campaigning, that is: stop the hating and start campaigning.