Frank Watson: Negative Campaigns Produce Negative Fallout

A few years ago, I was in the process of buying a new car, and the salesman in one dealership began telling me how poorly Fords were made.

I listened for a few minutes and replied that poorly made Fords didn’t make me feel any better about his brand.

Negative advertising didn’t work for me, and I don’t think it does for most people.

Negative political campaigns, however, seem to be a different kettle of fish.

The 1964 “Daisy Girl” ad, wherein the Johnson campaign alluded that Goldwater was a threat to start World War III, is credited with tipping the scales in Johnson’s favor.

Over the next 11 election cycles, the negative ads were pretty mild.

Ronald Reagan even praised the character of his opponent in one debate.

With the belief that negative ads work, both campaigns stepped up their attacks in 2008.

According to a study in Scientific American the 2012 campaign set all time records for negativity.

The same study tried to determine whether or not negative ads actually sway voters.

The results were inconclusive.

It is conclusive, however, that negative campaigns polarize the electorate and leave hostility in their wake.

The viciousness of the 2016 presidential campaign is unprecedented.

Going into the last debate, I was still undecided and thought that both candidates did a wonderful job of convincing me not to vote for their opponent.

I heard zero argument that I should vote “for” either one.

I was left without a candidate and was forced to choose the least unacceptable.

When I saw our current president on television saying that Donald Trump was morally unfit to be president, I wondered what would happen if Trump was elected.

We are there now, and we are paying the price of vicious campaigns.

I have friends who actually believe that President Trump will treat all women unfairly.

I have been told with certainty that the new administration will eliminate Social Security.

High schools in Spokane have allowed students to protest the election results in front of the schools.

Middle schools in Seattle have condoned protest walkouts by students as young as 11 and 12.

A grade school teacher in Seattle informed the students that school lunches would be less nutritious after the inauguration.

American citizens who happen to be Muslim fear deportation.

American citizens who happen to be black fear increased discrimination.

Attack ads don’t have to be true. It helps, though, if there is something to build the propaganda around. In 1964, candidate Goldwater favored a strong military. This became the seed to label him as a dangerous war monger. History tells us, however, that it was Johnson, the peace candidate, who escalated the war in Viet Nam. Donald Trump spent much of the campaign with his foot squarely in his mouth and made several inappropriate comments that served as fodder for attack ads, but he didn’t say or do the things would make Americans fear his presidency. This fear is the product of negative campaign propaganda.

I have faith in the American people. I believe that the majority of us will give Donald Trump a chance before we condemn him. I also think that the average citizen has seen more than enough negative campaigns. I am convinced that when the next campaign cycle comes around, candidates will be penalized for negative ads. I certainly hope so.

(Frank Watson is a retired school teacher and long-time resident of St. John.)