: You ain’t seen nasty yet…
Will the presidential campaign hit new lows in nastiness? Not likely. We’re a polite bunch politically compared to the 1800s when political parties had more power and swing voters were rare birds.
Elisabeth Bumiller takes us on a short, sentimental journey into the nasty days when, as I suspect, politics was a bit more fun than it is today.
Charges of negative campaigning are more rhetorical tactic than true outrage. The persuasive intent is to pathetically foment derision and indignation among voters–as if the whole idea of negativity were somehow a breech of good manners. The fact of the matter is that negative campaigning works. If it didn’t work, campaign managers and communications professionals wouldn’t craft negative campaigns.
What I think voters must guard against is being suckered into the idea that the Bush-Kerry contest is any more negative than any other campaign–thus creating apathy. The press and the pundits seem hell-bent on selling the idea that this campaign will be a mud-slinging hissy fit. Such a master narrative certainly derives from the narrative bias of journalism and the need to tell dramatic stories. But it seems to me that a clash of ideas (policy) could be equally dramatic and involve citizens as the primary protagonist.
