Campaign Negativity: Undermining the Process, Not the Principles

Campaign Negativity

Undermining Democracy's Process, but not its Principles

While negative campaigning does not undermine the principles of democracy in the United States, it does undermine the democratic process. Democracy is by definition a form of government in which the citizens have the right to control their own destinies - and, certainly, American voters retain the right to choose their candidates for office. In the most basic sense, negative campaigning cannot undermine democracy because it does not inhibit the abilities of its citizens to choose. However, this is not to say that negative campaigning is good for democracy in the United States. On the contrary, the intentional misleading of the public by political candidates has altered for the worse the way Americans think about elections: though Americans retain the right to choose, the decision is not about who will be the best candidate for President (or for any office), but who has the most potential to beat the opposition. Misleading advertisements and malicious speeches have changed the focus of campaigns from the positive qualities of one candidate to the negative qualities of the other. This shift in attention has caused the American electorate to literally become divided in two and neither side will be able to accept defeat without declaring its opponent illegitimate. Because of its consequences, negative campaigning actually undermines the application of democracy, despite the fact that its cause (negative campaigning) does not undermine democratic principles. This document will focus on the issue of negative campaigning mostly in reference to American presidential campaigns, especially the current election of 2004.

The most common argument supporting the legality of negative campaigning is that such campaigning, no matter how misleading or malicious, falls within the realm of the fundamental American right to freedom of speech. And, it's true: no matter how malicious or misleading he may be, a candidate for office has a legal right to lie to voters on his own accord (this truth will be discussed later in the document). However, by simply arguing that negative campaigning is in fact protected by the first amendment of the Constitution, one cannot make the conclusion that such campaigning is therefore undermining democracy - the only conclusion that may be drawn from the first amendment alone is that such campaigning is not out of sync with the United States Constitution. But is the Constitution out of sync with democracy? In order to address this question, it is necessary to clarify this document's understanding of "democracy."

The word "democracy" refers not to the type of government that functions in the United States. Rather, a democracy is any form of government in which the citizens have the right to control their own destinies. In a democracy, the people have the authority to make or directly influence decisions that will affect them. The actual term democracy comes from the Greek word demos, meaning "people," and kratos, meaning "authority."1 The United States has at its foundation the notion of democracy, though it is not always democratic. For example, in the presidential election of 2000, Democratic nominee Al Gore won the popular vote with 50,996,582 votes to Republican nominee George W. Bush's 50,456,062.2 On one hand, democracy is often described as a system where the majority rules; on the other hand, the United States was founded on the principle of democracy and, in 2000, the majority did not rule. Thus, it's pretty clear that the word "democracy" may be discussed in its purest form. Because a democracy is by definition a government in which the people hold the power by some means (such as the right to vote for or run as candidates for public office), negativity in political campaigns is does not literally undermine the notion of democracy, for its implementation does not change take the choice between candidates away from the citizens. However, negative campaigning does undermine the democratic process because it abuses the citizen's right by attempting to capture his vote through misleading propaganda.

By law, a broadcaster is actually required by law to run the advertisements of all qualified candidates, even if he knows an advertisement to be misleading or false.

If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section.3

The right of politicians to lie to the public is one that is actually written into American law. Therefore, no matter how harmful the consequences of such campaigning may be, they may never be deemed illegal. More importantly, because the American voter has the right to make his decision based on uncensored information (including that which may be misleading or negative), such campaigning does not intrinsically undermine democracy.

Just because it may not be debilitating to the principles of democracy does not mean that such campaigning is not subverting the process of democracy. For example, Dick Cheney stated that "a November win by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would put the United States at risk of another 'devastating' terrorist attack [by terrorist groups like al-Qaeda]."4 However, in a recent videotape, Osama Bin Laden, the alleged leader of al-Qaeda and mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, stated that the "security [of America] is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda... Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked."5 According to the leader of the terrorist group to whom Cheney referred, al-Qaeda is in fact no more or less likely to attack the United States if John Kerry is elected. Yet, Cheney's comments will not be forgotten by American voters, even though it may have been totally unfounded. Inherently, such campaigning takes the focus off of the positive qualities of one candidate and highlights the negative qualities of the other. This shift in attention is responsible for the political use of the clichй, "the lesser of two evils." Essentially, voters are left voting against one candidate instead of for the other, a practice that is innately counterproductive. The political consequence of this need to "vote against" instead of "vote for" a candidate is that he who wins the election is often not the best person for the job. Even more importantly, not only