Attack and divide.
Then, there are the more controversial ads. In so-called "attack" ads, candidates spend vast
sums trying to saddle their opponents with an unfavorable image -- soft on criminals, hard on taxpayers or
"an extremist."
Politicians love to talk about bringing people together, but they also win votes by dividing people.
Political strategists pick so-called "wedge issues" -- emotional topics like abortion, immigration, gun
rights or even taxes -- and turn them into stark black-and-white choices. The point is to divide voters,
driving away potential support for your opponent.
Polls show that abortion, despite the inordinate amount of attention it gets in campaigns and newspapers,
is hardly the most pressing concern for most Americans. Nor are most Americans' feelings so easily divided
into pro-choice or pro-life camps. For example, a significant majority oppose a ban on abortion --
but a majority usually say they favor certain restrictions, such as requiring minors seeking an abortion
to notify their parents.
But for a small percentage of voters on either side --let's say hypothetically, 5 to 10 percent of the electorate
-- it is a litmus test that will be the one thing deciding who they will support.
Since 5 percent can swing an election, campaigns pay a lot of attention to that one issue.
Gun rights is just as sticky. Polls show a large majority of Americans favor gun controls.
But those who oppose any restrictions, symbolized by the politically powerful National Rifle
Association (NRA), are far more likely than gun-control opponents to base their vote on that single issue.
Members of Congress who vote for anti-gun measures often find themselves looking down the barrel at attack
ads and mailings from the NRA. In 1994, the nation's most powerful lawmaker, House Speaker Tom Foley of
Spokane, was defeated with the help of a vigorous NRA efforts. His sin: Foley, a long-time supporter
of gun rights, had supported a ban on assault rifles.
For all the hand-wringing about "negative" ads, they can be a legitimate way to highlight
differences among candidates.
Ann Delaney, author of "Politics for Dummies," suggests voters should judge ads by whether
the candidate is trying to emotionally manipulate you, and look for whether he offers his
own solutions to the problem that he's blaming on his opponent. Voters, she adds,
should think hard about whether the issues are really a problem where you live.
Illegal immigration, for example, may stir people up nationwide -- but does it really have much
of an impact in Washington state?
Some reformers have suggested that candidates be required to appear in person on their
television and radio ads, making them more reluctant to make misleading claims or harsh personal attacks.
What about the press?
The press, in theory, should be a competing interest.
Much of the media now monitors and evaluates political advertising. While most campaigns make sure that
the claims in 30- or 60-second ads are at least technically true, that doesn't make them accurate or fair.
For example, if an ad attacks a candidate for supporting a tax hike, reporters can check out whether
that's accurate. Just as important, they can tell voters what isn't in the ad -- the circumstances
of the tax vote, the candidate's record on other tax issues and whether the opponent making those charges
has also supported tax increases. (The Seattle Times runs articles analyzing campaign ads under
the heading of "Truth Squad.")
But the press isn't blameless itself, and reporters can find themselves passing along the manipulations
of the campaigners.
According to a study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, for example,
the press can be guilty of magnifying the divisiveness of campaigns.
Reporters, the study says, often portray speeches and ads as far more negative than they really are.
Indeed, politics is often covered like sports, with an emphasis on conflict -- who's ahead in the polls,
who's raised the most money, how will the abortion issue hurt candidate X -- rather than a discussion of issues.
It's worth checking out several groups that monitor the press:
|Where do they stand?
| Follow the money
| Polls |
| Sales job
| The character question
| Initiatives | Endorsements
