==== ====
To Learn More About The 2012 Presidential Campaign Click Here
www.presidential2012candidates.com
==== ====
Does Mudslinging Define American Politics Now?
As we begin to see politicians emerge as front-runners in the 2012 presidential campaign, it's hard
to ignore the prominent role negative campaigning, also known as mudslinging, has come to take
in American politics. Campaigning solely on one's own accomplishments is virtually unheard of,
and for good reason: those who have done it have found it extremely difficult to get elected. Thus,
our campaigns have become primarily negative. The question is: is this a bad thing?
Negative campaigning in America can be traced back at least to the first half of the 19th century.
When incumbent John Quincy Adams faced Andrew Jackson in the 1828 election, Adams'
supporters took to attacking Jackson personally--to a degree unheard of today. They called
Jackson's mother a prostitute and made claims that Jackson's wife was unfaithful. These ploys
didn't work, however, and Jackson won the election.
The tactics, though, haven't disappeared. Negative campaigning played a major role in the
election of 2004, when Democrat John Kerry faced Republican George Bush. Supporters of Bush
called Kerry's military service into question in a series of critical assertions that hurt Kerry's
chances at winning the election. Negative campaigning also played a role in the election of 2008,
in which John McCain's hopes for the presidency were dashed when he selected Sarah Palin as
his running mate. Palin's tendency to make naive comments about government and foreign policy
made her fodder for political attacks on her integrity as a potential vice president. Many political
pundits feel this may have made the difference in the election.
Negative campaigning is already having a large influence on the 2012 presidential election.
Herman Cain's hopes to win the Republican primary were essentially shot when allegations about
his involvement in sexual harassment cases appeared. Michele Bachmann has made verbal faux
pas that were capitalized on by her opponents, leading her capabilities to be questioned by the
voting public. Thus, as the 2012 primaries draw near, it seems politicians have been ruled out
based on negative campaigning instead of ruled in based on their virtues.
But is this a bad thing? Supporters of Barack Obama might be able to make a valid case that
Michele Bachmann shouldn't be president based on a lack of knowledge of political affairs. If so,
then Republicans would be right to not pit her against Obama for the presidency. Likewise, even if
the allegations against Herman Cain prove to be unfounded, it is troubling that any candidate for
the presidency behave in a way that would open himself up to such allegations. So, perhaps
negative politics helps the public to weed out those whose integrity doesn't match the the
requirements of the political position.
It also seems clear, however, that mudslinging at times is taken too far. In many elections, the
public comes to know politicians by alleged misdeeds instead of actual accomplishments. This
clouds our ability to make an informed decision and doesn't guarantee the most qualified
candidate will take office. But while it makes sense to say that politicians should show more
restraint when it comes to negative campaigning, the real change must begin with the voting
public. For, until we stop responding to negative campaigning, they will certainly continue to rule
electoral outcomes.
==== ====
To Learn More About The 2012 Presidential Campaign Click Here
www.presidential2012candidates.com
==== ====