4 of 15

Write now Article Tools

Given the frequency with which negative campaigning has been used it is all too common in political races. Why wouldn't people use them? They work. It's easy for the mainstream, who just want to watch good news and hear the facts, to buy into all kinds of erroneous points candidates make. Negative ads are designed to appeal to peoples emotions and that's exactly what happens. As much as they are unethical, they are used every election.

There is a serious demarcation between attacking a person's character and a person's policy. The former should be used with all caution. At the very least it should be avoided. What if a candidate is telling the public a flat out lie and his opponent knows it? Then doesn't that person have an obligation to inform everyone else? As negative as the ad may be, it may have a greater good. This country has seen some of the most horrendous acts committed by its "leaders." If one of these people decides to run for re-election, who cares how negative the ad is? When it's truthful, doesn't it need to be addressed? So when election time comes around, candidates should do their very best not to produce attack ads, but the when the time comes the means very well may justify the end.

Obviously, there are ads that have nothing to do with politics. As a benevolent, advanced society we should disregard them as much as possible. However, the rule of thumb is to never speak in absolutes. Our nations leaders should lead by example. If their actions are unbecoming then the general public should know. The youth of America is supposed to look up to these men and women. If the mayor is doing illegal drugs and runs for re-election, his or her opponent has a legitimate claim on why a negative ad is released. If he or she engages in financial corruption, adultery, or other amoral acts, then the parents of the United States have a right to know who they are allowing to govern. If this country is a leader of the world then its leaders should act accordingly.

There is no reason a candidate shouldn't be allowed to run these seemingly meaningless ads. Yes, it breaks down the virtue of attacking policy over person. Yes, it is a detriment to the concept of an advanced society. But, at the same time it strengthens it. If our leaders know they can't enter an election without the utmost scrutiny, the best possible conduct, then perhaps we are slowly making our way to finding leaders who will not violate their constitutional authority. Or leaders who truly lead by example. On that blessed day, we may then not need negative ads. Until then, given the ease with which politicians lie, manipulate, and pretend, negative ads are a legitimate check.

Learn more about this author, Peter Brock Ii.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about US elections 2008: Negative advertising has a purpose?
We want to hear your view. Write now!