With elections and primaries come campaign attack ads, used to gain political advantage while at the risk of causing backlash among voters. Often seen as negative, candidates must recognize and balance the risk of adopting personal attacks versus promoting a platform or vision.
Despite the criticisms, John Geer, chair of the department of political science at Vanderbilt University, says attack ads in the current election season provide direct information necessary for voters to make one of the most important decisions—choosing the next president of the United States.
“Candidates are skilled at telling you why you should vote for them. But they won’t tell you the problems of their candidacy,” Geer stated. “A good decision requires full information—knowing the weaknesses of a candidate is an important part of that,” he said.
According to Geer, political campaign ads—including the so-called negative attack ads—are a mechanism for getting such information out.
From Geer’s perspective, campaign ads are a vital, uncensored way for politicians to reach out to voters, and a First Amendment right. “News media could filter the information,” Geer said. “I don’t think we—as journalists, scholars, or pundits—should try to control the content of ads.”
Ads serve as a “direct link” from politician to voter, where the information is presented in a “digestible size.” The American public doesn’t have hours to watch all the debates and interviews, according to Geer.
He selected recent ads against Newt Gingrich, which contain claims from the former House speaker’s ex-wife, as an example.
“Sometimes candidates behave badly, and we need to know about that. It might not necessarily be denigration, just providing information,” he claimed.
Geer says it’s up to the American people to decide whether those ads are relevant, or not. “It’s not fun to make those claims. But they are true.”
According to Geer, positive ads can also be useful, although “vague.”
“You find out that a candidate is for education, clean water, and creating jobs,” he said. “Well, there’s no candidate in the country that doesn’t pay or pray for that.”
Geer says it’s “absolutely correct” when Mitt Romney’s ads say he balanced budgets as the governor of Massachusetts. “But if you or I were governor of Massachusetts we would also balance the budget because it is constitutionally mandated.”
Geer also said that data suggests attack ads have the same effect as positive ones, but can be a double-edged sword. “The average of the effect may be the same, but the range is really different,” he said. While a positive ad rarely backfires, a negative ad “can go against you when it goes too far.”
For instance, with John McCain’s attack ad on President Obama back in 2008, which claimed Obama planned to enforce sex education for kindergartners, it backfired for McCain. “You have to stick to the record or you'll be in trouble,” Geer said.
Meanwhile, positive ads can also make a big impact. “Some of the ads that Reagan aired in ‘84 really helped solidify his lead; they were positive ads,” Geer said.
Super PACs
Contrary to popular belief, Geer said the addition of ads this year from independent groups, known as the “Super PACS,” have not changed the atmosphere.
“The Super PAC ads have changed things a little bit,” he said. “But I think the overall tone is not a big surprise,” for negative ads have always been around.
“Back in the 1800s, Thomas Jefferson was referred to as the ‘anti-Christ,’” Geer said.
But what about from the voter’s perspective? Warren Wong, 27, feels that many campaign ads are not helpful. In fact, they’re “poorly done and distasteful,” he said, and criticizing an ad run by former candidate Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Carlos Sanchez, 24, says political ads are “a gray area.”
“They give good information, but the method [of attack] is not right,” Sanchez said. He feels the same information could be given during debates.
As a voter, Sanchez said it was helpful to learn of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital through the ads.
