"I am not suited for this place. Here, ruining lives is considered sport." William Vincent Foster was a White House aide in the Clinton Administration when he committed suicide July 20, 1993 after only six months in office.
Such are the pressures on the men and women who run for office or work for candidates in democracies where free speech permits the suspension of laws and ethics against slander and libel during a political campaign.
As has been noted by others, negative advertising isn't new to American politics. When men and women of huge egos spend fortunes to gain office, it's not odd that as a candidate loses voter support, he or she will tend to "go negative" to besmirch the policies, record, and even moral or spiritual character of his or her opponent. It's a last ditch effort to realign the minds of voters who are leaning toward the opponent. It's not pretty, it's not ethical, it's not always honest but when the playing field goes against a candidate, the only remaining tactic is to "play dirty."
Negative advertising has three basic forms.
Comparative advertising, whereby one candidate uses his opponent's record against him, is fair game though it can get nasty. Distortions abound in this type of campaigning but there is a solid basis for raising questions about the legislative positions and political ideology of the opposing candidate.
Attack advertising, too, is within reasonable rules and is used to denigrate, ridicule, or malign the expressed policies, positions and ability of an opponent to govern. Mockery is common to such advertising but, again, it is at least based on "subjective" interpretations of the opponent's record.
Sleaze advertising is the last resort of the trailing candidate. Common sense and honor are thrown out the door and ridiculous, libelous and slanderous accusations are made that impugn the character, temperament and morality of the opponent. In this case, the advertising is usually done by the "party" or surrogates leaving the candidate with "plausible deniability" that he or she actually believes this crap.
Lee Atwater and Karl Rove are attributed with designing and successfully implementing the negative campaign "playbook" of the late 20th Century that destroyed all opposition by the most degenerate means, particularly when promoting a weak candidate as with Dubya, who was elected by the Supreme Court in 2000, and by a disputed vote in Ohio in 2004.
After eight years of clearly failed international and economic policy, during which the GOP held the presidency and the majority in Congress for six years, the electorate is leaning toward the Democrats in any case. This puts the Republicans and John McCain in a terrific uphill battle to convince the electorate that another Republican is the agent of change the nation demands.
And here is where the other side of the blade cuts.
Voters want to believe in someone who has a new vision and the intelligence and character to bring the nation together. Comparative, attack or sleaze advertising against the candidate who is more likely to do that makes the trailing contender look desperate, foolish, and dishonorable. The electorate demands a 21st Century approach to politics and the 20th Century playbook isn't working. Voters have seen too many partisan attack and sleaze campaigns in recent years to forget how awful and unproductive American politics can be.
Few of us want our nation to be led by a bad loser.