There seems to be a desire among many Americans to have our political campaigns conducted like the discussions on PBS’s “Firing Line”—political candidates sitting around pontificating on the issues and politely clearing their throats before looking embarrassed and saying, “I’m so sorry to have to disagree with you, sir, but I’m afraid your reading of the facts in Point #1847A simply doesn’t pass muster...”
Here in the Alaskan Interior, the Tanana Valley chapter of the League of Women Voters is emphasizing the League’s drive to end “negative campaigning.” The only really negative campaign that has taken place here in 1996 was the one between Ted Stevens and Dave Cuddy for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate—a seat Stevens has held since about the Cretaceous era, giving him the status of a demi-god in the minds of many otherwise independent-thinking Alaskans.
By public reckoning, the dirty campaigning started when Cuddy hired an investigator to research Stevens’ ethical conduct during his two or three eons in Congress, but in reality the first dirty trick was Stevens’ public warning that Cuddy’s supporters might try to bypass the legally required primary election with a convention endorsement. While there were those who were seeking to keep the Republican nomination process off the state’s legally required open ballot, Cuddy was not involved in that effort and stated publicly that he didn’t think the open primary would hurt him. On the other hand, this was before the Democratic field shaped up so poorly that Theresa Obermeyer, who has paranoid theories surrounding her husband’s inability to pass the state bar exam (she blames a conspiracy masterminded by Stevens), won the nomination to oppose Stevens in November. Most Democrats probably did cross over to support Stevens, knowing that anyone capable of stringing together two cohrent thoughts could beat Obermeyer, and that, conservative rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, Stevens is a more dedicated defender of Big Government, at least for Alaska’s benefit, than even the 1996 model of Bill Clinton.
Aside from the Stevens/Cuddy fight, though, Alaska’s campaigns have tended to be very positive, though not of the rarefied “Firing Line” caliber. So the emphasis being given to fighting negative campaigning here seems curious.
Nationally, it’s a different matter. Just think back to the personal attacks heaped on Pat Buchanan after it began to look as though he would win the New Hampshire primary, and you’ll understand why. But there’s also a great deal of confusion about what really constitutes “negative campaigning.” To some, merely quoting an opponent in context is “going negative;” to some, making any comparisons at all between one candidate and another, regardless of the substance, is “going negative.” Meanwhile, Clinton and the Democrats unleash a barrage of attacks on Republicans, accusing them of wanting to starve children, pollute the air and water, and throw seniors out into the street to subsist on dog food—and that’s okay!
Oddly enough, I find even the mindless drumbeat against undefined “negative campaigns” to be a positive sign—it means that there is a desire among the people to hear candidates address substance rather than hear them spread fluff and distortion. People do want, deep down, to see proof that politics is not a war between fanatics on both sides, with the innocent hard-working taxpayer caught defenseless in the middle.
For the candidate, this is a tough challenge; the whole point of campaigning is to get more votes than the other guy. That means any serious campaign is going to have a lot of its attention focused on its opposition—where are their strengths that we have to overcome, their weaknesses we can play to, their gaffes we can benefit from?
Big Media doesn’t help matters—on the one hand, they thrive on controversy, but their talking heads don’t think you and I are smart enough or interested enough to figure out what the substantive issues are in a real controversy, so they focus instead on “fluff” controversy. On the other hand, Big Media is also largely responsible for the concern that exists out there about “negative” campaigning—and again, because they don’t think Mr. & Mrs. Mainstream America are mentally capable of working out for themselves what “going negative” really means, they never allow themselves to get very deep into the question of definition. As a result, the declining (but still overwhelming) majority of Americans who get their information from Dan, Tom and Peter every evening, only get increasingly confused.
Here in Alaska, this has actually led to something of a backlash. Some local leaders have voiced skepticism about the high profile of the campaign to fight negative campaigns. An unsuccessful challenger for a legislative seat in 1994 (a liberal Democrat, no less!) has authored two letters-to-the-editor questioning the League of Women Voters’ efforts. It will be interesting to see where things shake out locally, whether the same community that recently drove an outspoken local conservative off the radio for being so “negative” will turn around and tell an organization touting “going positive” to sit down and shut up.
I’ve already described the one truly negative-toned campaign that took place hereabouts. Now I want to describe a campaign that was so positive it made my teeth hurt. A state senate seat in Fairbanks was wide open after its incumbent (a Republican) decided 12 years was long enough. Two Republicans filed for that seat—one, a former Alaska State Trooper, espoused solid libertarian-conservative views and has a charisma that should have made him a shoo-in. His opponent bravely campaigned in favor of “statesmanship” and promised that he would make the Interior’s priorities the state’s priorities (without ever saying what those priorities were). The ex-Trooper could and should have challenged this vacant campaign and made it clear to voters that his opponent is an empty shirt—or at least cajoled the man to start getting specific. Instead he “went positive” and lost.
There is certainly plenty of reason to question whether some undefined standard of “positive” campaigning really benefits the process, or helps to ensure that the best candidates get elected. In at least one race in Fairbanks, it actually ensured the opposite.
