|
I don't think it should come as any surprise that both sides engage in "negative campaigning". This has been the case in American politics for years and has gotten much worse since the past few years. We can debate the reasons, but there are certainly some underlying drivers for this.
These include
The Republican Right's "witch-hunt" (or campaign) against Clinton over a blow-job
The close win of Bush over Gore in 2000
The sense of "victimhood" that permeated the Democrats after that
The divisive nature of the war in Iraq (half of Americans really do have issues with Bush's policies here)
The fact that negative campaigning works
It's a sad state of affairs and one that has recently reared its ugly head in Australian politics. Campaigning here (and in the UK and Ireland where I come from) originally was "positive"; that is, it offered the electorate a set of alternate policies, a different vision, a choice. However the Howard government didn't do this, but simply attacked the opposition Labor Party in the campaign using scare tactics. It worked. They won when most people expecte them to lose, as people reacted to the negative messages with which they were bombarded.
I don't like what negative campaigning does. I don't like the skewing of facts, the mispresentation and the downright lies used in some adverts. I can't see any way to "fix it" though. I think, like annoying people on cellphones in public, it's become a fact of life.
Thoughts?
Mr Mephisto
|