Negative Advertising

Evolution of Negative Advertising Practices

At the presidential level, 1988 is sometimes heralded as the beginning of a new era in negative advertising. The Willie Horton ad, aired by an independent group, attacked Michael Dukakis as soft on crime when, as governor of Massachusetts, he allowed Horton out of prison for a weekend furlough during which Horton committed murder. Dukakis apparently saw so little merit in the attack that he decided to ignore it; he wanted to “take the high road” and not lower his campaign by responding. One of the lessons learned from this is sometimes called “the Dukakis effect.” Simply put, it means that if a candidate is attacked, she or he must respond. A failure to respond, even if the candidate sees little validity in the content of the attack itself, is often disaster. This mantra, that an attack must receive a response, is perhaps the closest guideline to a “rule” that exists governing use of negative advertising response strategies.

Since 1988, other “rules and guidelines” that politicians and their consultants learn and often practice have evolved as well. Several decades ago negativity at the national level was acceptable but “not in my backyard.” The NIMBY phenomenon has practically disappeared. Mudslinging and attack advertising, sometimes at their most vicious, are as likely to be found in local community campaigns as they are in races for national offices. Similarly, certain types of races at one time were fairly immune from mudslinging. Today, in states where judges are elected rather than appointed, even campaigns for state supreme court justices are not immune. There is no level of campaign nor any elected position for which mudslinging is not a utilized strategy.

Another guideline that has practically disappeared is based on candidate status: generally speaking, there was a period of 2 to 3 decades when incumbents were less likely to attack their opponents than were challengers, and incumbents were less likely to go on the offensive first. That, too, is a guideline no more. An incumbent candidate, particularly one anticipating a serious challenge, is just as likely in this first decade of the 21st century to “initiate combat” as is any challenger.

A third informal rule that has gone away deals with gender. Today, male candidates initiate attacks against women candidates, women initiate attacks against male candidates, and women candidates attack other women candidates with the same vehemence and zeal as male candidates at one time reserved for battling one another.

...