The election season, democracy's semi-annual ritual of regime change, has come to a close. As usual, candidates bombarded the airwaves with their ludicrous claims and counter-claims and took umbrage at the "negative campaigns" and "attack ads" their opponents waged against them. "Negative campaigning" — this is the one phrase that has dominated the last several elections. It is one of the strangest complaints to come out of the strange and perverse world of democracy, for although almost every candidate rails against "negative campaigning", none of them seems to define it. We rarely hear specifics, just constant indignation. Like the gurgling of babies, these political sounds jibber at us but we don't know whether to ignore them or try to make sense of them. What can we make of these charges? Where do they occur? Who are they directed at? Should we be alarmed by all "attack ads" or just some of them? These are unasked and unanswered questions of America's power struggles.
The charge of "negative campaigning" is curious because it seems to assume that anything that is negative should not be said, at least not in public. Do these politicians who want to get rid of negative campaigning want to get rid of negative movie and theater reviews as well? How about negative performance reviews or negative product evaluations? What of negative comedians — how can we let them get away with it? Should campaigns consist of just "constructive criticism"? If we are to follow the logic of politicians, this is where it leads. Perhaps the next step is to eliminate criticism altogether.
The moral indignation of office seekers is doubly curious because while every candidate seems to lament negative campaigning, none seems to avoid it. The campaigns of the "attacking" candidates are much the same as those of the "defending" candidates. It is hard to think of an election in which the contestants said nothing negative about their opponents except those elections that went uncontested. In effect, politicians seem to be pleading for a white crow.
If negative campaigning is the norm, why do politicians feel so outraged by it? One reason is that politicians want to maintain the myth that politics is a gentlemanly or, more ludicrously, a saintly calling, not a power struggle. They want to hide the fact that they are struggling for power, power over people's lives and money. So they talk as if, all contrary evidence notwithstanding, malicious campaigning was an aberration instigated by mean spirited opponents who are violating the standards of noble democratic institutions. Its just a few bad apples, they say, who are spoiling the contest. Every candidate feigns shock at how bitter the battle over other people's possessions can be while plotting his next assault.
Politicians want to maintain the lie of democratic purity, but they also want to maintain their own special innocence. So they object not just to malicious attacks but also to criticism in general. Politicians want to believe in themselves as public servants and saviors. They have to in order to justify their power. They are on a constant ego trip, in need of the adulation of crowds, and their sensitive egos tend to take all criticisms personally. As pseudo-saviors, they see anyone who criticizes them publicly as depraved individuals. So they react like paranoids, denouncing any critical remarks as "personal attacks" without explaining what is so personal about them.
If politicians continually use a phrase but never define it or justify it, perhaps they don't want it examined closely. Perhaps they don't really want to do away with negative campaigning, but merely to limit it to certain targets. Notice that although politicians of all stripes lament negative campaigning, there is one type of negative campaigning that they never discuss — the type they routinely launch against private citizens. A minute spent watching campaign ads will show unprovoked vile that would not be tolerated if spewed against any ethnic group. Turn on the TV and you will see tobacco companies, drug companies, HMO's, developers, and oil companies being attacked by politicians as if they were child molesters. Lest you think it is only corporations that are attacked, look again. Candidate B comes on and attacks the rights of smokers, gun owners, and the wealthy who are not paying their "fair share". Then Candidate C follows with a diatribe against "illegal" immigrants and drug users. One would think that a trial was going on, a public show trial in which all these citizens and companies were being charged with crimes against the "public interest". We hear no discussion of rights, no discussion of power, just a malicious spate of venom. Somehow the sensitive politicians who consider any criticism a personal attack have no compunction against vilifying many of "their constituents". The truth is that attack ads and hate groups are not a breach of democracy's etiquette but democracy as usual.
The problem of political attacks against private citizens goes still further. Not only must private organizations suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous politicians, they are forced to pay for it and prohibited from answering attacks publicly during the campaign season. Public financing of campaigns is forced on citizens. Public testimony before legislatures is forced on both individuals and corporations. Special taxes are forced on disliked industries and activities. The hurt that politicians suffer at each other's hands is trivial compared to the malice and hate they spew in these never-ending campaigns against innocent citizens. Yet hardly a voice is heard in protest, least of all from politicians. Imagine your company or product branded a public enemy on television or on a billboard sponsored by the government. Imagine yourself dragged before a congressional committee to answer charges about your finances. Imagine yourself taxed to support your enemies or your competitors. Now you see the real danger of negative campaigning. Now you see the hypocrisy and tyranny of democracy.
The victims of negative campaigning are not limited to those who are publicly excoriated. Although many politicians go out of their way to vilify politically incorrect groups, most office seekers do not name their victims. This does not make their campaigns any less rapacious. Almost every political program is an attack, an attack on taxpayers. The politicians who promise more money for state education are stealing from older citizens to give to younger citizens and teachers. The politicians who promise free drugs for senior citizens are stealing from younger people and taxpayers in general. The politicians who promise to keep Social Security alive are promising to continue plundering the populace. Of course, politicians rarely say where the money for their plans comes from. If they do, they will boast that it is only coming from a tax on multi-millionaires, as if stealing was OK as long as we divide the spoils equally. If this is not negative campaigning, then the phrase has lost all meaning. If we use the language consistently, politics is a continual negative campaign, a campaign of divide and conquer against taxpayers. But the term negative campaigning is too mild a term to describe what goes on in elections. This is not just negative campaigning, it is predatory campaigning.
Although there is plenty of negative campaigning, there is far too little of the type we need. Candidates lambaste each other for dividing the loot wrong, not for looting. We need people to condemn the premises that all the politician-plunderers and most of the voters share — the premise that the government has the power to do almost anything it wants, the premise that voters can vote themselves a share of their fellow citizens' property, the premise that the state has the right to rule us. We need to call politicians by their rightful names — tyrants and dictators.
The lament over negative campaigning misses the point — it is a quarrel about honor among thieves. Our outrage should be against the theft, not the scuffle among the bandits. Many are criticizing the noise, few are criticizing the crime. This tells us how little democracy respects freedom.
November 22, 2002
