December 2006

DEAN’S COLUMN

AT WHAT COST?

By Dean Richard Morgan, Boyd School of Law

             With another election cycle drawing—mercifully-- to a close, I am once again struck by the unhelpful, negative advertisements that now dominate our political communication.  Of course, the same advertisements that I characterize as negative and unhelpful are undoubtedly seen by campaign consultants as positive and helpful.  It really is all in the eye of the beholder, and because the campaign consultants have learned that attack ads are successful in influencing voters, they view such ads as a positive-- even a beautiful-- thing.

            Since candidates want to win their races and since campaign consultants advise them that victory is more likely with negative attack advertising, it is no surprise that this sort of stuff dominates the political landscape.  But, one has to ask, at least every now and again, what are the costs of this advertising, and do they outweigh the benefits?

            One great benefit is that media companies make a lot of money off of attack ads.  Because effective attack ads demand responses, the political advertising free-for-all produces great profits for the owners of media companies.

            Another benefit of such advertising is that it is a reflection of our freedom to speak and to campaign as we see fit.  No one tells our candidates what they can and cannot do; restraint, respect and reasonableness are not attributes that candidates are required to exhibit. 

            As mentioned above, the main benefit of negative advertising is that it works.  The consumers of political “discourse” think that attack advertising is just fine.  So, those who engage in such advertising are giving the public what it appears to want.

            So much for the benefits.  What about the costs?

            A major cost, I would think, is to the self-respect of the candidate who succumbs, as many do, to negative attack ads.  How can self-respecting human beings conduct themselves in such ways?  They do so to achieve victory.  But victory at what cost?  Does that end really justify these means?

            Another major cost, I would think, is that many good people are dissuaded from running for office.  If it takes personal attacks and negative campaigning to win, many qualified people will simply refuse to run, either because they do not wish to dish out the mud, or because they do not want to take it, or both.

            Other major costs are harm to the reputation of the opponent who is the subject of the attack and harm to the credibility of the political system.  To the extent that people believe the political advertising, that person is besmirched, often wrongly.  To the extent that people disbelieve the political rhetoric, the whole process becomes incredible and a joke.

            But the most major cost, I believe, is to the reputation of all political candidates.  Attack ads reinforce the view that politicians will do anything to get elected.  And the substance of those ads sends the message that politicians are bad people.  Obviously, these are not good messages if we are looking to our elected officials for leadership.  How can we look up to such people in these circumstances?

            So long as attack ads work to produce victories, I doubt that much will change.  I hope that some candidates will continue to show self-restraint and that others will join them.  But I doubt that political consultants will change their tune, and that means that our culture of negativity will likely continue.

            So long as it does, we should redouble our efforts to remove judges from the electoral process.  Judges, more than any other public officials, need to have the confidence of the public.  In electoral campaigns infused with negativity, they are very likely to lose that confidence.