In the tumultuous landscape of modern politics, negative campaigning has become all too common.
This strategy is employed by candidates seeking to gain an edge over their opponents, of course, but while it may seem like an effective way to sway public opinion, the long-term consequences of this approach are far-reaching and detrimental to the democratic process.
Negative campaigning, or attacks on the character, policies, or personal life of opponents, undermines the very foundation of democracy by fostering cynicism, polarization, and voter apathy. Instead of focusing on substantive issues and constructive debates, it devolves into a mudslinging battle where the goal is to tear down the opposition, rather than inspire and inform.
One of the most concerning aspects of negative campaigning is its impact on voter behavior. Research has shown that negative ads tend to stick in the minds of voters more so than positive ones. This leads to feelings of anger, frustration, and disillusionment. Rather than making informed decisions based on the merits of each candidate’s platform, voters are swayed by fear, mistrust, and manipulation.
Moreover, negative campaigning contributes to the erosion of public trust in political institutions and the electoral process as a whole. This is why some believe it is an effective tool, but can it backfire?
This week, those in the city of Wheeling saw all of this first-hand, when what had been a friendly race, where candidates focused on their attributes and issues, looked to be smearing some of the others in a six-candidate mayoral race. Or so it appeared, on first glance.
It is also worth looking a little deeper, and usually best to gather the facts, especially before letting one’s fingers do the speaking. This columnist likes to share words of wisdom by her father. The one that has come to mind this week, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.”
When candidates engage in relentless smear tactics, it creates an atmosphere of hostility and divisiveness that alienates voters and undermines their faith in the democratic process. Instead of inspiring confidence in the ability of those seeking election to govern, it breeds cynicism and disillusionment, fueling the rise of apathy and disengagement. This was not the case for these particular candidates or these particular races. These had been some of the more positive this election cycle.
Furthermore, negative campaigning has a corrosive effect of political discourse, stifling meaningful debate and discouraging candidates from engaging in constructive dialogue.
Instead of focusing on solutions to issues, candidates are almost incentivized to engage in character assassination and mudslinging in desperation to gain an advantage. This toxic environment not only detracts for the issues that matter to voters but also sets a dangerous precedent for future campaigns. It also further perpetuates polarization and deepens societal divisions by reinforcing partisan loyalties and exacerbating animosity between rivals.
Rather than seek common ground and develop a sense of unity, it breeds hostility, contempt, and resentment which further embeds ideological divides and hinders progress on critical issues. In an era marked by increasing political polarization, negative campaigning serves to widen the gap between opposing sides, making compromise and cooperation more difficult to attain.
Was this the intent? To further divide the community? Was it for personal gain? If so, what was the goal? What was to be gained?
What happens when it is not coming from a candidate? Is it worse, when the smearing and damaging of reputations comes at the hands of others? All candidates presented statements through various mediums that this activity was not coming from their campaigns. What about if the individual is not following the rules and is breaking the law?
Sadly, this was quickly exposed this past week as well.
Throughout the week, residents raced to their mailboxes and dissected these mailers looking for clues, and there were so many the mystery has been unraveled by several investigating entities. So, what will become of it or any other action taken to stop the disintegration of public trust?
Only time will tell.
