Pizza 1
Ali Pizza
October 26, 2008
Political Science 1100
Alex McDonald
Political Mudslinging
Throughout American history we, as Americans, have been entrusted the privilege
of electing representatives, and voting on how we think our country and local government should
operate. The most prominent campaign that all Americans hear about is the Presidential
Campaign. It incurs the highest turnout rate when compared with off year elections, or elections
and polling falling on different years than the presidential elections (Fair Vote - Voting and
Democracy Research Center, 2008). With the Presidential Elections being the most popular
voting event for Americans, there are campaigns to educate the population about each candidate.
Typically, the candidates tell you about what they plan to do as president. Along with campaign
ads and public talk, often voters hear some gossip, buzz or even attack-ads regarding the bad
things about a candidate to draw negative attention while making the opposite side look better.
This action of drawing negative attention for the gain of the opposite is commonly referred to as
“Mudslinging”.
Mudslinging can be anything from reputational rumors started by interest groups to
television ads by the campaigning opponents themselves stating what the other candidate is or
isn’t planning for our country. Some of the so-called ‘information’ about the other party can be
exaggerated or fabricated to catch the public’s attention, or make the opposing side look better.
This makes a difficult task for us, the voters, to pull out the truth and cast aside the mud.
Pizza 2
Paul Krugman of the New York Times writes about political mudslinging in his opinion
article, “Resentment Strategy: Republicans doing what they do best” (Krugman, 2008). In this
article, Krugman addresses the clever ways politicians use wordplay to attract attention to
whatever they think will make them look good, and away from whatever they think makes them
look bad. He refers to examples of Republican candidates inaccurately portraying their
Democratic opponent as elitists, putting words into opponent’s mouths, but most importantly
creating a feeling of resentment. Krugman asserts that the Republicans base their hostility of
Democrats on “…the perception – generally based on no evidence whatsoever – that Democrats
look down their noses at regular people,” (para.6) and finishes saying, “…the Democrats can’t
afford to be complacent. Resentment, no matter how contrived, is a very powerful force, and it’s
one that Republicans are very, very good at exploiting” (para.14).
While Krugman makes a good point with specific examples, he doesn’t paint a full
picture. In politics, every person involved is a participant in competition. Where there is
competition there will always be the good and the bad, and of course, the ugly. It seems that both
sides to a political campaign fight dirty and always have. When someone raises a bet, in order to
play the hand, the other has to match. There will always be fingers pointed at who did it first, but
it’s like the old proverb asks, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” Nobody can positively
answer the question; we just know one creates the other and so on. The same is true with
political mudslinging.
Even Krugman himself takes part in what he criticizes. With his first words in the title,
“Resentment strategy: Republicans are doing what they do best” Krugman openly points finger
at Republicans as the wrong-doers. Krugman quotes President Bush saying that “John McCain
would stand up to the ‘angry left’,” (para.4) as if summing up Democrats with such a term is
Pizza 3
narrow-minded; then later goes on to refer to the Republicans as the ‘angry right’ (para.16). Is
this hypocritical or is our country merely keeping up our traditions?
In a UAB Magazine article titled, “Political Mudslinging: An Age-Old Game” (Short,
1997) writer Gail Short quotes UAB Political scientist Steven Daniels, Ph.D. as saying, “Political
mudslinging is nothing new,” (para.10). Dr. Daniels uses Thomas Jefferson as an example,
referencing attacks during campaigning for presidency that he had a slave mistress. He also notes
attacks on Abraham Lincoln for his physical appearance and on Grover Cleveland for his alleged
‘illegitimate child’ (para.10). Short points out that more recently, in 1988, President Bush (the
first) famously ran ads making connections between convicted murderer Willie Horton1 and
presidential candidate Michael Dukakis’s opposition to the death penalty. The campaign ad is
said to have severely damaged Dukakis’s chance at winning that election (para.7)
Short’s opinion article begins with her introducing readers to Dennis Rancont, a UAB
Assistant Athletic Director who ran for City Council in the early 1990’s. Short tells the story of
Rancont’s campaign experience. When he began running against opponent Jimmy Blake, he
didn’t have much recognition, and to boost him up, his advisors suggested he run attack-ads on
the radio against Blake. He went against his better judgments and ran the ads. Right away
donations increased, but he didn’t feel good about the ads and pulled them off the radio within a
week. He later lost the campaign. Short quotes Rancont’s account of the experience, “I kept
thinking about how I had fallen into the trap of believing that I needed to do whatever it took to
get into the run-off. But after I yanked the ads, there were people who just went crazy. They
[supporters] bought into the win-at-all-costs thing, and they thought I was being weak” (para.4).
1
Willie Horton was a convicted murderer serving a life sentence who did not return from furlough (a temporary
leave from prison program) then viciously assaulted a Maryland couple. (Wikipedia (contributors, 2008))
Pizza 4
Short emphasizes that you can’t win the hand if you don’t match the bets. It leaves a dreadful
feeling that being honest and fair doesn’t win the vote.
The ironic thing is that people believe what they hear with complete conviction despite
the fact that they have not verified the information. Next time you hear a smear-ad, think about
questioning the source. Do you really want to vote for someone or something that is willing to do
whatever it takes to become elected, even if it is not true, relevant, or ethical?
From a world of people with the instinct to survive at all costs comes a cross-fire of
political bludgeoning that clouds up the information stream. We as voters need to keep an open
mind and consider all possibilities before jumping to any conclusions about any particular
candidate. This goes for positive promotional campaigning as well. We have a responsibility to
do our own research on the candidates we vote for rather than voting blindly or following the
flock. We have been bestowed the opportunity to make our country whatever we want and need
it to be and we, the people, from the poor to the rich have a say. Hopefully voters can make an
educated, positive and clear choice about how our country will be lead.
Pizza 5
Works Cited
Wikipedia Contributors (2008). Willie Horton. Retrieved 10 24, 2008, from
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia:
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willie_Horton&oldid=247419282
Fair Vote - Voting and Democracy Research Center. (2008). Voter Turnout. Retrieved 10 25,
2008, from Fairvote: http://www/fairvote.org/?page=262
Krugman, P. (2008). Resentment Strategy: Republicans are doing what they do best. New York
Times .
Short, G. (1997). Political Mudslinging: An Age-Old Game. Retrieved 10 24, 2008, from UAB
Publishing: http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=49288