Years ago, a fellow churchgoer and I were chatting after Sunday service. The conversation took a hard turn when he asked me, “What do you do for a living”?
“I work on political campaigns”, I replied. “I create ads for candidates”.
You would have thought I told him I worked for Al Qaeda. “That’s disgusting”, he said, walking off to speak with someone not destined to spend eternity roasting in Hell.
As a member of a fraternity of professionals who help candidates achieve public office, part of my job is to draw a bright line between what my client stands for and what his opponents represent. Anything less is to do a disservice to my client — and the public.
Network anchors will announce that candidate A has launched an “attack ad” against candidate B. Talking heads denounce the ad as “mudslinging”, “polluting the political discourse”, etc. So why do folks in my business keep cranking out messaging that the public finds so…disturbing? One reason is that negative campaign ads work, and people DO watch them. But there is a more significant reason why negative political ads are utilized.
In a perfect world, men and women running for public office would tell voters everything they need to know about themselves, so those voters can make an informed decision on election day. In democracies, elections are held to decide who sits on the school board, who fixes the potholes, and who gets the nuclear launch codes. With so much at stake, elections can get…competitive. Campaign budgets often employ opposition research to discover how imperfect a political rival is. Political pundits call this process “digging up dirt” on opponents. The reality is that this research is information that can be found in the public domain, like tax records, court documents, and voting records. The result of this research finds its way into the hands of consultants, who use the information to convince voters why a candidate does not deserve to lead his community.
Candidates will not reveal Information about themselves that may lead voters to elect someone else. The press isn’t the public watchdog it used to be. Countless online news outlets, bloggers, and a narrow public attention span make it hard for the most diligent reporter to investigate every rumor and allegation. The checks and balances of our political system are frayed. But I believe a tax cheat should not become a county assessor. A racist should not be attorney general. And a pathological liar and thief should not be elected to the US Congress (looking at you, George Santos). Negative campaigning can be a public service — with guardrails, such as:
• Not lying.
• Keeping the message relevant.
• Avoiding personal smears that target “civilians” — an opponent’s spouse or friends.
If you have read this far, thanks for your time. If you disagree with me or have a different take, let’s talk. I welcome any dialogue that raises our political I.Q., and some of us may be less inclined to consign campaign staffers to eternal damnation.
YOUR MESSAGE IS MY MISSION 