 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| Whimping Out In Campaign 2000
by John M. Curtis Copyright December 28, 1999
Political consultants telegraphed the wrong signals about negative campaigning, suggesting that discrediting the opposition carries bad repercussions. All successful campaigns operate to impeach the credibility of political foes. Voter apathy has nothing to do with perceptions of negative campaigning. On the contrary, spicing up campaigns demands that candidates hold highly critical—and at times hostile—views of their rivals. After all, without showing blatant criticality, then what do candidates stand for? Respect for opponent’s views doesn’t mean pulling punches, equivocating and avoiding conflict at all costs. Reluctance for conflict is a sheer sign that candidates are running scared of responding to attacks. Without responding to attacks, voters have little basis to evaluate how candidates hold up under pressure. "Negative campaigning just isn’t what it used to be," said Ray Strother, president of American Association of Political Consultants. "The combat mode does not work anymore," commented Strother, implying that passionate candidates have no place in the political landscape. Please. That’s exactly what voters are looking for—passion. Like good boxing matches, political contests involve exchanging blows rather than dancing around the ring. Candidates can bob and weave, run and hide, for only so long before voters have them pegged as spineless, unprincipled and weak. Articulating politically incorrect positions doesn’t—in itself—hurt candidates’ status with voters. Just as certainly, avoiding cutting edge issues assures that voters don’t have much respect for candidates fearful of expressing controversial issues. Speaking boastfully, Democratic front-runner Al Gore said, "I have never launched a personal negative attack and I never will." But what’s to be proud of? Showing that you’re above the fray only helps the image to a point. Politicians are expected to mix it up, engaging in combat when it’s needed to express personal views. Voters aren’t disgusted with politics, they’re repelled by phoniness and a failure of nerve. "There’s such a public revulsion against politics in general," remarked Doug Bailey, a former political consultant, implying that the public’s turned off to candidates expressing negative views. "I’d like to think we can go through in this 'high-minded' style," commented Bob Beckel, a former political consultant with the failed 1984 Mondale campaign. "But this dog has been around the track too many times to think that’s true," admits Beckel. With punditry stretched to the breaking point, successful candidates will have to reclaim the lost commodity of common sense. Voters don’t expect mutual admiration societies—they expect spirited, hard-hitting rhetoric, persuading a skeptical electorate why they should vote for a particular candidate. There’s a big difference from taking 'cheap shots' with classless political advertising and hammering away at opponents’ weaknesses. Negative campaigning has much more to do with style than substance. It’s not the attack per se, but the manner in which it’s delivered. As with most things, there’s a fine art to executing an effective political attack. Today’s version of negative campaigning is neatly camouflaged. While campaign 2000 doesn’t tolerate overt attacks—so far—it does accept cryptic defamation circulated via unidentified political operatives. Leaking scurrilous rumors or stories to the press via carefully worded press releases packs a wallop, often upending candidates without the negative fallout from direct political attacks. Executing stealth strategies designed to attack candidates’ credibility and integrity pays the biggest rewards by shielding candidates from the vicious aspects of the attacks. Without knowing it, today’s political warfare is a twilight battle, with candidates constantly speculating about the disguised sources of the negative leaks. Candidates have learned well from the ‘90s political culture by allowing spin meisters to orchestrate covert strategies for dismantling the opposition. Seldomly did anyone hear anything directly negative from president Clinton during the entire Monica Lewinsky scandal. All the counterattacking, discrediting and vindication originated through surrogates, like attorneys, spin doctors, colleagues and even spouses. During campaign 2000, watch for the stealth tactics by which candidates are attacked and discredited. When Al Gore says, "I have never launched a personal negative attack and I never will," look carefully at how the assault manifests itself through carefully camouflaged surrogates, apparently unrelated to the Gore campaign. But let there be no mistake: Gore’s opponents are being systematically attacked and discredited. Appearing outwardly friendly in no way means that candidates aren’t relying on more disguised methods of attacking their foes. By avoiding direct attacks, candidates can help Teflon proof their images, making them appear more appealing and likable. But playing the 'nice guy' also has its downside by creating potential perceptions of weakness, equivocation and, worse, insincerity. Whimping out is still a lot different from negative campaigning. About the Author John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com. He’s also the director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. |
||||||
urning negative campaigning on its head, presidential candidates have bent over backwards to avoid appearing negative—a dirty word in today’s political vernacular. But in their reluctance to attack the issues—and those candidates representing them—campaign 2000 is producing more yawns than a doctor’s waitng room. "He’s a good man. He’s a good man," said Texas Governor George W. Bush about his chief rival Arizona Sen. John McCain. And inducing even more reverse peristalsis, Sen. McCain returns the platitudes about Gov. Bush, "He’s a fine and decent man." Someone misread the political manuals in campaign 2000, instructing candidates to avoid negativity at all costs. Without raining on anyone’s parade, political dialogue demands finding fault or risking that you’re politically neutered. Taking the 'high-road' risks taking no road at all by showing a candidate’s lack of spine. What could be more boring than speaking in glowing but phony terms about your rivals?|
Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos This site designed, developed and hosted by the experts at ©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
