Voting foils aim of negative ads

By John Huebscher

	John Huebscher

A staple of the election season is upon us - the barrage of negative TV and radio advertising. These ads offer nothing in the way of useful information to voters. And the cost of airing them is a major reason campaigns have become so expensive.

So why do candidates and interest groups run the ads? Because they work.

But they work in a way that is cynical in the extreme and ultimately destructive to our political process. For the purpose of negative advertising is not to attract a voter to a candidate. On the contrary, the goal of such a campaign tactic is to get the voter to stay home on Election Day.

Candidates know that a certain part of the electorate is strongly committed to them or their party and will turn out in any event. They also know that some voters are less committed, may be unhappy with some or all of their positions and inclined to vote for the other side. These unattached or loosely committed voters are the true targets of the negative advertising.

Related articles: from Nov. 3, 2006 issue: • Bishops agree: Catholics obliged to vote     Voters will face a variety of issues     and candidates, but voting remains our duty • Editorial -- Important votes     Wisconsin bishops give sound advice for 'Yes'     on marriage, 'No' on death referenda • Stewardship: A Way of Life --     Faithful Citizenship 2006 (Last in a seven-part     election series)     Choose Life: Oppose the death penalty -     Questions and Answers on Wisconsin's     advisory referendum to reinstate     the death penalty • Find more election resources on our Links page.

The theory is that if such voters can be convinced that the other candidate is no better than the person running the negative attack ad, the voter will throw up their hands and say, "They're all the same so I won't even bother to vote."

This is fine with the campaign strategists. A smaller electorate, consisting of committed partisans, is easier to appeal to and more predictable. And, if you can "turn out your base" in sufficient number, you don't need to appeal to independents or voters who are less zealous.

Such a strategy can work in the short term. Over the long haul, however, it undermines the common good.

Ultimately, leaders who rely only on their most rabid supporters have less incentive and less opportunity to reach out to independents and opponents. This undermines consensus building, especially when challenging times and complex issues call for compromise and conciliation.

So, what is a voter to do? Vote! Don't let the cynics drive you out of the village square. Form your conscience, study the issues and the candidates and vote for those who you think are best suited for the office they seek. Once the candidates and consultants see that voters will turn out despite their mudslinging, they just might start aiming higher than the lowest common denominator of public opinion.

And they will need our encouragement if they try.

In 1864, Abraham Lincoln, fearing his defeat for re-election, observed, "Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration, as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards."

Like Lincoln's opponent in 1864, those who rely so heavily on cynicism and negativity are seeking office in a way that will make it harder for them to govern effectively should they win.

Part of our vocation as "faithful citizens" is to stay involved after the election and help the victors be better leaders than they are candidates.

(Huebscher is executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the civil arm of the state's five diocesan bishops.)