Dissecting the ‘art of smear’

Negative attacks aren’t always wrong and sometimes required
The truth by itself isn’t ‘negative’ – it just is

There has been a lot made of the negative campaigns run by some of the candidates this primary season. I have heard from several long time Brevardians this is the nastiest election cycle they have ever seen. Because I was knee deep in covering what has been described as the nastiest of them all, I wanted to weigh in on this issue and share my thoughts.

Let me start by saying I am not a fan of negative campaigns, especially when they go negative at a personal level right out of the starting gate (ala Stump versus Steele). I think elections should be about the ideas the candidates hold, and the decisions they will make if elected; not whether or not they had a conviction for drug possession or a tax lien from fifteen years ago.

While there are some things at a personal level I consider relevant to deciding whether or not to vote for a particular candidate, unless there is a proven and demonstrable pattern of inappropriate behavior that points to a defect in character, I’d prefer not to hear the personal attacks. ‘Proven’ and ‘pattern’ are the key words here.

Conversely, however, when it comes to attacking candidates on the issues, or elected officials on their performance in office, I am of the mind that anything goes, SO LONG AS THE CHARGE LEVELED IS FACTUAL. There is nothing wrong with identifying and calling attention to malfeasance or wrongdoing – and by definition those topics would be ‘negative’ (to the candidate being accused at least) – so long as there was ACTUAL malfeasance or wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, this is where the abuse occurs, and why I think most people are turned off by politics today. Not because they aren’t concerned with the issues that affect their lives, but because they don’t think they can trust anyone to tell them the truth any more. And based on my involvement locally in this election cycle, I’d say they are justified in thinking this.

If you as a voter don’t know what is true and what isn’t, participating in the process becomes a truly daunting task. If there is no objective third party checking the facts and calling people out on false allegations, there is no reason or penalty for those running the smear campaigns to stop running them.

In the immortal words of Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing”. The role of third party fact checker used to be performed by professionals called “journalists”. Alas, there don’t seem to be many of those around any longer.

The failure of the media to hold candidates and elected officials accountable for their (false) statements is partially responsible for the current “shoot first, ask questions later” campaign fad you see today. 

In most cases, the candidates and consultants know what their campaign strategy is, and what kind of picture they want to paint of their opponent(s). They then create and make an allegation that suits their purpose, regardless of whether it is true or has any basis in reality at all, to help make the picture they want to paint “real” for the voters. If/when the candidate or campaign is called out on the false information or misstatement by the opponent, the candidate simply “apologizes” for his error, promises not to do it again, and moves on to the next smear (think Needelman versus Ellis and the Sarno Landfill comments).

The “instant on” and “always on” nature of today’s digital media makes it possible for them to repeat this cycle both quickly and cheaply. The unfortunate result is the voting public becomes desensitized to the coverage – including the coverage of the victims who try to defend themselves. In essence, the voters become cynics, throw their hands up in despair and say in effect: “I don’t know who to trust, nobody is telling me the truth, they’re all just saying bad (negative) things about each other”.

The last part of that statement is technically true, but the emphasis shouldn’t be on the fact that something was negative – the emphasis (and anger) should be directed at the fact the information initially provided was false or incomplete.

As often happens in our society today, people confuse and reverse the primary: the “what”, with the secondary: the “how”. In other words, the false information is the primary, and is what gives rise to the secondary concept ‘negative’. By focusing attention on the secondary – the how (in this case ‘negative’ statements) - and treating it as though it is more important than the primary – the what (the untruth of the statements) – you effectively brand the candidate defending himself as just as bad as the attacker, because he has to go ‘negative’ to defend himself against the false information.

Let’s look at a different, more obvious example. If you take the stance that violence qua violence is bad, without considering the context, or how the violence began; i.e. who initiated the violence and for what reason, you have effectively reduced a man defending his life against a killer to the moral stature of the murderer trying to kill him. 

Unless and until voters differentiate between the bad guys making stuff up, and the good guys defending the truth, the bad guys win by default, and there will be no end to ‘negative’ campaigning.