Thoughts on negative campaigning

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on his shoes. – Mark Twain

We hear it a lot nowadays, the phrase “negative campaigning”, now that election day is fast approaching.

But it’s been around for millennia, in one configuration or another. The elements of negative campaigning, I mean, usually in the form of black propaganda or disinformation.

In ancient Egypt and Rome, art, architecture and even public works infrastructure (think of the Roman Coliseum in BF pink) were manipulated by the ruling class to entertain, to gain support for military campaigns and political causes, to encourage unity, and above all to portray not only the ruler, but also those associated with him or her as strong, moral leaders that are faithful to the people. (ref: Elsbet Smith, Sweet Briar College, Art History Senior Seminar 452, February 8, 2004). At least the Egyptians and Romans tried to be subtle, in contrast to their later imitators.

Sun Tzu is credited with the aphorism that “All warfare is based on deception”. And what is politics but war and vice-versa, according to Mao Zedong.

As a tool to advance one’s agenda, Machiavelli in The Prince, advocated deception to gain and maintain political control, the end always justifying the means, believing that “One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived”.

Adolf Hitler explained the principle of the Big Lie: people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people take it as gospel truth.

Thus, negative campaigns have a long history as an integral part of the political process, whatever the prevailing political system in a polity would be. It should therefore not surprise us that certain candidates resort to negative campaigning during elections, such is their unholy hunger for public office.

Some definition of terms before we proceed.

According to Wikipedia, negative campaigning, also known more colloquially as "mudslinging", is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.

White propaganda comes from a source that is identified correctly, and the information in the message tends to be accurate.

Black propaganda is when the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions.

Another term used to describe propaganda is disinformation. Disinformation is usually considered black propaganda because it is covert and uses false information. Disinformation means “false, incomplete, or misleading information that is passed, fed, or confirmed to a targeted individual or group”.

Thus, negative campaigns are made up of black propaganda, disinformation and other synonymous or analogous terms and practices, e.g. deception, deceit, psywar, mind control, snow job, political spin, dirty tricks, black ops and the like.

And there’s one simple reason why it’s been around for a long time: it works.

I remember my first brush with black propaganda as a little boy in the sixties coming across a comic book left over from the last presidential elections. By then Marcos had been elected to his first term and the “komiks” in question had been sent out by the camp of his defeated opponent, former president Diosdado Macapagal (yes, the father of you know who).

It partly deals with the story of the young Marcos, who as a senior law student was charged with the murder of his father’s political opponent, a Mr. Julio Nalundasan. It shows the victim brushing his teeth while looking out the window of his house. The young Marcos, an expert sharpshooter, is hiding in the bushes with a rifle. The next panel shows Mr. Nalundasan felled by a bullet in the back and shouting, in Ilokano, “Arrgk! Pinaltugan Ak !” (“Arrgk! I’ve been shot!). I was around six years old at the time but I remember thinking what a cold-hearted killer this Marcos was.

After first being convicted by a trial court, Marcos was subsequently acquitted of the crime by the Supreme Court. He wrote his appeal brief and took the bar exams behind bars. He topped the bar and left the Laoag provincial jail in triumph. This was the beginning of the Marcos mystique that he would capitalize on as he climbed the rungs of power.

But that image of Marcos as a killer stayed with me.

So obviously, negative campaigning is effective. Those who run negative campaigns justify their actions by saying that the voting public has a right to know about the conduct and character of those running for public office. The higher the post, the more information should be made available about those vying for the job. This is all very well if smear campaigns deal with the truth. More often than not, however, they are grounded on half-truths, misinformation and outright lies.

But aside from being effective, what are other compelling reasons for using negative campaigning ? Campaign strategist and author Cathy Allen has said that going negative might be the proper course when taking on an incumbent, when your opponent has more money than you or when there is irrefutable information that the opponent has done something wrong.

Dean Michael Mezey of DePaul University explains further: “What negative advertising does is get your supporters committed and excited. Those who are indifferent are so turned off that they are less likely to vote, as are people who are for the other candidate - so not only does it help you, but it depresses turnout. The ideal, rational goal is to turn out your most committed supporters and make sure nobody else turns out.”

Thus, negative campaigning deals a double whammy on the target, raising the morale of the black campaigner’s supporters while dampening the enthusiasm of those who are undecided and could possibly swing over to the other side. It creates the intended and desired FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt - factor.

And the opportunity to wreck havoc by spreading negative stories, once presented, is just too tempting to pass up. It’s fun to fling mud at somebody, a fact we know from childhood.

When one candidate starts, the natural reaction of the others is to respond in kind and throw up some dirt of their own – a vicious cycle of mudslinging ensues. Pretty soon everyone is covered in filth.

It’s a sad reality but it seems we have to live with it. I know just how marketing guru Seth Godin feels when he said:

“The reliance on negative stories in politics makes me sick. I think we should be above that. The fact that negative stories have influenced every election of my lifetime, though, means that I'm wrong, we're not above it.”

How do we deal with it, other than gnashing our teeth and pulling out our hair in anguish ?

The only effective weapon against the Big Lie are truth and reason.

Reason dictates that we be discerning in our choice of whom to vote for. Use your coconut, as the saying goes. Look at the candidates’ platforms, how they respond to issues, their public and (if possible) private demeanor. Try to see behind the mask. Examine their past record and accomplishments.

Don’t be swayed by surveys. They can be, and often are, manipulated. Their entire methodology is less than transparent, with the critical factors determining the outcome hidden from public view. And it’s paid for by vested interests. Pollsters will be biased for their clients. Even at its best, it’s obviously not an exact science.

Resist the urge to be cynical. Realize that you are the focus of negative campaigning: the undecided, the critical, the careful and deliberate voter. You are the one intended to be manipulated. You don’t have to vote against the mudslinging candidate for him or her to win. They just want you not to show up at all on election day. If you stay away, their dirty tricks would have worked. Don’t give them the satisfaction.

I know that, given the present level (entirely justified) of our people’s distrust, disgust and outright hostility against our institutions and present leaders, it’s hard not to feel pessimistic about the whole exercise. More so considering the gutter-level at which most candidates have run their campaigns.

But by simply participating in the elections you would have struck a blow for the democratic process, whether your candidate wins or loses. I may be naïve, but I sincerely believe that this is a chance for us to be counted. Let’s not waste this opportunity.

And this will be a historic year for many young, first time voters who constitute more than a third of the voting population. Let’s not let them down.

At the very least, you would have learned a lesson in civics and can pat yourself on the back for being a good citizen.

And let’s make an effort to distinguish the truth from the lies. Easier said than done, given all the disinformation around us. But it would be worthwhile to try anyway.

Don’t expect to get the truth from politicians.

Keep in mind Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter’s observation that:

“Politicians are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth.”

It’s up to us to break the shackles of ignorance and apathy by educating ourselves and finding out the real score regarding the people we want to vote into office. It won’t be easy but if we persevere, the truth will reveal itself in the end. The real question is if we have the courage to face the painful fact that we deserve the leaders we ultimately end up with.

The Warrior Lawyer blogs at The WarriorLawyer.com