In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns

TLDR: In defense of negativity: Attack ads in Presidential Campaigns as discussed by the authors argues that democracy requires candidates to attack each other, which is the role of the opposition, and it can only be done by offering criticisms of the opposing candidate or party.

Abstract: In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. By John G. Geer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. 218p. $47.50 cloth, $19.00 paper. This book begins with a series of quotes from scholars and media pundits arguing that negative political advertisements are uncivil, mean-spirited, emotion-laden distortions of the truth, which not only smear their target but also mislead voters and undermine the political process itself; in short, they are the scourge of democracy. Or so the conventional wisdom goes. But John Geer asks us to reject the starting assumption that attack ads are bad. In fact, he argues that democracy requires candidates to attack each other. His argument is simple but powerful: All advertisements, by their very nature, exaggerate the truth. But this point applies equally to negative and positive ads. We cannot expect political candidates to fairly discuss their weaknesses along with their strengths. That is the role of the opposition, and it can only be done by offering criticisms of the opposing candidate or party. The real questions, then, are 1) whether negative ads perform their role effectively, or instead distort and confuse the vote choices citizens must make; and 2) whether attack ads, in performing a role that seems to be required of them, nonetheless undermine the democratic political system of which they are a crucial part.