Perhaps so. But, a few good words can be said about such a strategy.

In a free society, political speech has to be free, even if there is mudslinging and name-calling, even if there are lies and errors. In the USA, it's not against the law for political ads to lie or to deceive.

Who would you want to be the censor? To approve what can be said?

In the US Constitution, the very important 1st Amendment ("freedom of speech") was crafted by people who knew that previous rulers (kings, churches) had always used bans and censorship to stop any critics. The spirit of the age of the 18th century Enlightenment believed that "truth would win out" in an open and free rational argument.

Perhaps they underestimated the power and extent of non-rational persuasion, such as emotional appeals and "guilt by association." Certainly they could not have foreseen our modern technology (TV, computers) which makes it so easy to use non-rational persuasion reaching millions. But, the 1st Amendment has served us well over the years, protecting our freedom to criticize and dissent.

Professor John Geer (in "Nasty, Brutist and Short") emphasized: " The reality is that politics is a rough-and-tumble game, and campaigns are pitched battles for control of the government. The stakes are often high, and the competition is usually fierce. Attack ads may be uncivil, but what's so important about civility when the future of the country is at stake? They may constitute "scare tactics," but fear also may be appropriate. The real issue should not be the tone of an ad but whether the information presented is useful to voters."

Attacks against the other are not intrinsically wrong. It's useful, often essential, that the weak spots, the negative points, do come out, both about issues and character.

Start with the assumption that all people intensify their own good and downplay their own bad. In a conflict, you have to expect that others (the opposition, or the press) will bring out, will intensify, those negatives which have been omitted or concealed.

But, it's one thing to make true charges about the real faults and weaknesses of the opposition, it's another thing to make false charges and to use dirty tricks, lies, and innuendoes in a smear campaign.

For example, be very skeptical about any "last minute" attacks, on election eve, which leave no time for the other to respond. Such attacks can be by any media: radio talk-shows, television ads, well-timed direct mailings, or by rumors spread online. A good guide is to treat any new "last minute" charges as false.

If you are annoyed by the side-effects of free speech, you can be less annoyed and more involved as a citizen, by knowing what to look for in political language, by recognizing patterns.

Complaints | Election Rhetoric | Home