There is a town where the people love candy. In this town are two candy companies: Sweet Sweets and Shady Sugars Inc. These companies often run advertising campaigns promoting their product. For years this advertising conveyed a positive message. Each company extolled the virtues of its own product highlighting the flavor, texture and aesthetic appeal of its candy. Some years one company would sell more than another, in other years the trend would reverse. The people had no reason to prefer one company over another and would drift back and forth with the trends of the day.

This changed one day when Sweet Sweets scientists discovered that a new Shady Sugars Inc product, Frosty Blasts, contained a dangerous ingredient. Anyone who drank soda and ate a Frosty Blast within an hour of each other would be killed as the two otherwise harmless products reacted and exploded violently. Sweet Sweets brought this information to the authorities who did nothing, so Sweet Sweets came up with a new advertising campaign.

This campaign was very controversial. Rather than following the long tradition of only praising the quality of its own product, Sweet Sweets began to explain the dangers associated with the competitor’s product. Shady Sugars Inc. responded to the new campaign by denying the danger and condemning the new negative tone of its competitor. The people disgusted with Sweet Sweets’ negative advertising campaign turned in droves to Shady Sugars Inc. to satisfy the cravings of their collective sweet tooth. 

Sweet Sweets lost many of its customers because of the negative campaign, but many of those customers lost their lives because they failed to heed the negative but true and relevant warnings.

Is negative political advertising undesirable, something that should be excised from the political process? The answer is that it depends on what is meant by negative advertising. Some negative advertising has nothing to do with any issue that is relevant to the selection of a candidate. “Psst, did you now Candidate Smith’s uncle beats baby seals.” The actions of an uncle who Candidate Smith has never met and does not know are completely irrelevant. This sort of negative advertising should be avoided and condemned.

Candidates have learned though to mix that which is irrelevant with that which is relevant. They give both the same label and neatly avoid true and relevant criticism, and in the process of doing so even manage to make the opponent look like he is the one in the wrong. Voters likewise either fool themselves or allow others to do so, by ignoring that which, while uncomfortable to confront, must be confronted.

When two competing candidates have two equally good platforms with no hidden dangers or shortcomings, then there should be no negative advertising. The inconsequential differences in personal taste that makes someone choose Coke over Pepsi can, with no ill result, lead the voters to select one candidate over the other. This will almost never be the case in any election.

The more likely, and virtually universal circumstance, is that both candidates will have their share of good ideas as well as bad. A candidate can’t be relied on to expose the flaws of his own plan and is far more likely to do everything possible to hide them. Such exposure needs to come from another source. Voters cannot make an informed, wise decision if the flaws are hidden from them. If only the positive is raised, the result is a popularity contest rather than a examination and adoption of the better policy and rejection of the inferior one.

There is “good negative” and “bad negative” campaigning. The “good negative” is absolutely necessary for a healthy debate. It needs to be embraced rather than eschewed. It also needs to be publicly defended and praised. The candidate who needs to expose the dangers and flaws of his opponent’s position, can’t let that opponent label and dismiss those efforts as negative advertising/campaigning. He should instead invite the “good negative” attacks from his opponent and explain why his own such attacks are necessary, good and beneficial.   The “good negative” should be contrasted with the “bad negative”, and the power of the negative label needs to be sapped.

Embracing and even encouraging incoming “good negative” attacks can be an offensive weapon. The candidate who invites criticism can contrast himself with the candidate who hides from the same. Why is he hiding from debate? Why does he cry foul when I expose his flaws, but has no problem attempting to expose my flaws? I invite open honest critique, is that not something desirable in a candidate? If his plans are truly desirable, they will withstand criticism. It is the house of straw rather than the house of brick which fears the structural integrity test offered by strong wind.

My next post will continue with this theme to some extent and will look at other negative advertising that is good. This post has focused on critique of a politician’s ideas; the next will discuss critique of his character. Critique of character is less obviously a form a “good negative” campaigning but nevertheless it is as necessary as critique of his policies.