Terrorists Who Hunger for a Voice:
Negative Campaigning and its Effect on Political Discourse
By: Kate Bryan
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................
1.2 Democracy vs. Negative Personal Attacks ................................................
1.3 Context Review ..........................................................................................
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...............................................................................
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................
2.2 The Negative Campaign ............................................................................
2.3 Public Opinion ...........................................................................................
2.4 The Media Prefers Drama ..........................................................................
2.5 Moniker: What’s in a Name? .....................................................................
2.6 The Outcome of Negative Campaigning ...................................................
2.7 An End to Dialogue, An End to Democracy..............................................
2.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................
Chapter 3: Method ...............................................................................................
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................
3.2 Qualitative Research ..................................................................................
3.3 Quantitative Research ...............................................................................
3.4 The Difficult Side of Research ..................................................................
3.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................
Chapter 4: The Irish Negative Campaign Situation ............................................
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................
4.2 The Terrorist-ization of the Hunger Strickers ............................................
4.3 The Lisbon Treaty Debate: Battling Negative Campaigns ........................
4.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................
Chapter 5: The 2008 United States Presidential Election Campaign ..................
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................
5.2 Barack Hussein Obama: The Name of a Terrorist? ...................................
5.3 McCain: An Old Vampire Warmonger and Adulterer ..............................
5.4 Sarah Palin: Terrorist, Pit-bull, and Hockey Mom ....................................
5.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................
Chapter 6: The Obama Nation: Post 2008 Election .............................................
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................
6.2 Tea Parties for Terrorists? ..........................................................................
6.3 The Mosque Controversy at Ground Zero .................................................
6.4 Conclusion....................................................................................................................
Chapter 7: Conclusion and Recommendations ....................................................
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................
7.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................
7.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................
7.4 Future Research and Implications for Professional Practice .....................
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Context Review
1.1
Introduction
Negative campaigns can be personal attacks or attacks centered around the
actual issues facing society. This paper seeks to analyze the personal attacks type
of negative campaigning and the effects of these negative attacks, particularly
against individuals and groups, rather than politicians. While negative attack ads
have historically helped win campaigns, which it may, but does it promote
democracy? If it doesn’t promote the common good for society or dialogue in
pursuit of the common good, are these attacks still justifiable? What is to be said
about individuals or groups who are genuinely striving to speak out regarding
specific issues, in hopes that their voices will be heard? Although negative
campaigns have been proven to win campaigns and have been proven that they
work, they neglect democracy, understanding, or communication.
1.2
Democracy vs. Negative Personal Attacks
Democracy is a government that is directed by the people. In a
democracy, the government focuses on informing the voter on the issues that are
important to them, thus encouraging an educated decision. Society, or the Public,
refers to the members that build this democracy and work to promote the common
good of themselves and others. Negative personal attacks lead to a certain public
opinion, which is uneducated on the crucial aspects of their vote and distorts the
common good that society is looking for. Negative campaigns work to persuade
the public into believing things that are completely untrue or partial truths which
are altered to create a negative attack against the other person or group. The
media promotes these negative personal attacks, because they thrive on them.
Although negative attacks have a proven history of success in winning campaigns,
these campaigns do not promote democracy, as they do not promote dialogue or
knowledge. The need for dialogue and democracy within politics is great, as
freedom of speech rights are being destroyed. Instead of promoting freedom of
speech and dialogue, negative personal attacks ultimately segregate society and
encourage hatred and disrespect.
1.3
Context Review
Negative campaigning is most often regarded as one candidate attacking
another. In this type of negative campaign, each candidate strives to portray the
other in the worst possible fashion. The other main type of negative campaigning
is the attack on a person, group, or section of society. This paper will focus on the
latter type, as this is the type of negative campaign that is the most prominent and
recognizable, yet rarely is discussed.
Negative campaigning against individuals, groups, or a section of society
has become more popular in modern culture. Politicians have been known to
spawn “attack ads” against one another and publicize negative facts, or untruths,
about the other. Politics can be a world of “dirty tricks”, a world that once
seemed confined primarily to the political sector, but is currently making its way
into the mainstream world, into mainstream media.
Politics has a long history of negative attack ads and negative
campaigning, but now this form of attack is being directed at normal everyday
citizens. The typical negative campaigning against political candidates is still in
effect, but is consistently getting more pernicious and now is involving the
general public. Citizens are entering the debate, by releasing their own negative
attacks against politicians, which often are going above the lines of “freedom of
speech” and entering the scene of inappropriateness. But, there are other citizens
who are bringing forth genuine concerns and substantive attacks, but then are
being attacked with claims that they are “bigots”, “racists”, or “extremists”, when
all they are doing is voicing their authentic concern for their country.
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
2.1
Introduction
Negative campaigning has a long history of practice within the political
sector, comprising of one candidate attacking the other candidate with negative
smear ads. In today’s world, negative campaigning has become more prevalent
than ever, not just in the political, but now in the public sector. The negative
campaigns set out to influence public opinion of various candidates and groups
and focuses on negative attacks in order to attain their goal. The public loves
drama, thus media prefers drama because it allows them to attract more followers.
Negative campaigns are effective. They work. This is why they are used; but for
various reasons, they destroy the ideals of democracy. Negative campaigns do
not promote dialogue or intellectual reasoning; for this and for other reasons
determined in the research, democracy comes to an end within sphere of negative
campaigns.
2.2
Negative Campaign
Smear campaigns are more prevalent than ever in politics and are now
spreading out of the political spectrum into the public sector. Negative
campaigning is most often regarded as one candidate attacking another. In these
negative attacks, each candidate strives to portray the other in the worst possible
fashion. The other main type of negative campaigning is the attack on a group,
religion, or section of society, which is often facilitated by a politician, political
group, or an opposing group. The public claims that they do not enjoy negative
campaigns or smear ads, but they do work to some extent.
“In survey after survey, registered voters say they don’t like the negativity
and the mudslinging in politics. But, if that is true, then why is there so
much mudslinging in campaigns? One reason, people love soap operas
and they love gossip - and political campaigns have plenty of both”
(Swint: xi).
Negative campaigning is a popular form of action in politics because politicians
and the media both know that these campaigns are effective. People have an
innate interest in drama, which explains why celebrity gossip magazines and
websites are also so successful. Scholars have studied the negative campaign
phenomena and verify the power of negative ad campaigns.
“Several scholars have noted the persuasive power of negative arguments
(Cobb & Kuklinski, 1997; Riker, 1996), and their prominence in campaign
advertisements suggests that the most enduring appeals might well be
those that are negative (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Jamieson, 1992;
Kaid & Johnston, 1991).” (Jerit: 565)
Although negative ads are appealing to the public, many argue that they are unfair
or coerce the voter to case their vote under false pretenses. Westen writes that it
is important to
“Understand the use and misuse of negative emotion in campaigns (which
is what negative ads try to engender) requires distinguishing between
attacks that are unfair, misleading, or unethical and those that are not only
accurate but essential for catching voters’ attention and informing their
emotions.” (Westen: 319)
Negative campaigns are often filled with misinformation, twisting of facts, or
outright lies. This is where a negative campaign becomes an immoral or unfair
attack. What is more disconcerting is that politicians and the media realize that
the public is captivated by drama and thus use the medium of negative campaigns
to literally coerce the public into believing various misinformation or untruths.
2.3
Public Opinion
Writer and political commentator Walter Lippmann believed that the way
a person imagines the world determines what the person will do; it thus
determines his effort, his feelings, his hopes, not his accomplishments and results
(Lippman: 34). Lippman recognized the power that the media and politicians
hold and how they are able to use this power to influence the public. Lippman’s
view was that even the most outspoken person, apparently independently thinking
person, places his entire hope on the formation by propaganda of a class
conscious group (Ibid: 34). If what Lippmann writes is true, that means that
propaganda and campaigns have more depth of importance and control than the
world has come to recognize. This would mean that negative campaigning is an
extremely powerful tool in the coercion of man to believe anything, true or
untrue. Politicians and the media know this to be true and are able to get away
with campaigns that distort truth, in order to promote a candidate or a particular
issue. In Lippmann’s view, “For what operates in history is not the systematic
idea as a genius formulated it, but shifting imitations, replicas, counterfeits,
analogies, and distortions in individuals minds” (Lippmann: 101). The human
mind is a powerful thing, but is being corrupted by the untruths promoted in the
current negative campaigns of distorted information. But, truth or untruth,
negative campaigns work and this is why they are used widely and promoted
within the media.
2.4
The Media Prefers Drama
The media has become an integral part of any campaign, most especially
the negative campaign. With the massive rise in social media networking, a drop
in newspaper production (which were generally held to a higher standard), and the
rising popularity of political communications within the media, people more than
ever rely on the messages fed through the circuits of television and the internet.
The media though must still work to gain the attention and loyalty of its
viewership, thus they must catch the attention of the public, this is often done via
dramatic events that harbor the interest and intrigue of the public. “The use of
emotional appeals is consistent with the media’s preference for drama and
excitement in news reporting (Bennett, 2003).” (Jerit: 567) Candidates and
groups know that the media is looking to air drama, thus they will also try to
create drama, in hopes that it might attract the media’s attention and they will get
promotion. Jerit goes on to say, “the use of emotional appeals by candidates
reflects their belief that these arguments are more likely to be covered than sober,
factual formulations.” (567) Politicians and other individuals are willing to distort
information and facts, because they understand that they will only get promotion
if there is drama and excitement involved.
“Since no reader can know all the judgments figuring into the decisions
about what news or entertainment to offer, constant opportunities arise for
the media enterprise to secretly allow advertiser influence.” (Baker: 77)
The media has the power to run whatever ads they prefer and ultimately spin the
information however they like. It is, therefore, important that members of the
public judge the information given, accordingly. This should lead the public to
become more careful and analyze the stories presented in the media because
deception is consistently running through the media airwaves.
2.4
Moniker: What’s in a Name?
Name-calling has become the headlining factor in campaigns, the “sound
byte” adjective, if you will, while formal and civilized debate about the “issues”
has become cliché. Candidates are quick to vocalize their negative campaign
against their opponent with a simple word or phrase outlining their negative
feelings. Sometimes these campaigns, as with negative campaigns in general, can
have some amount of truth attached to them, but most readily act as an outlet to
dodge debate or discussion on the real underlying issues. “Words are important.
All by themselves. If we are patient enough to examine them carefully, if we are
willing to look for connections among them, much can be learned.” (Hart, 2000:
24) In the case of a campaign centered on truthful arguments, there may be some
substance to the moniker used. In negative campaigns, though, they simply exist
to attack the other person. This offers reason for concern. As Paul Johnson states
in his book Enemies of Society,
“A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost
certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those
who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend
words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The
correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of
civilized status.” (259)
If man confronts another person or a group with an attack, rather than dialogue or
debate, one can almost assume that this will continue once they are elected to a
position of power. This is evident in politics and will be discussed further in this
research paper.
2.5
The Outcome of Negative Campaigning
According to Ansolabehere and Iyengar, “advertising polarizes American
elections… advertisements are informative and not manipulative…” (10) This
claim has been proven wrong in the research for this paper and the findings will
be further developed throughout the continuation of this presentation. Although
the claim that advertisements are meant to be informative and not manipulative
could be true in some cases, in most cases of negative campaigning this is not
true. This statement assumes that the information being presented is truthful, but
the current situation of campaigning is filled with untruths about candidates,
people, organizations, and groups. But, as discussed before in this paper, these
attack ads are effective and that’s why they are being used.
Studies show that “people pay greater attention to negative information
than to positive information.” (Martin: 548) Politicians use negative campaigns
because they work, the same can be said for the types of negative campaigns that
are promoted by the media. Politicians win elections using negative campaigns
and the media garners attention and viewers (and therefore, advertising dollars) in
using negative campaigns. Even though negative campaigns may focus on fear
and misinformation, they are effective and they have been shown to mobilize a
group or person to political victory.
“Arguments that incite fear or anger seem especially good at resolving one
of the ‘essential tensions’ of a campaign: the need to mobilize the party's
base while attracting the support of the uncommitted (Johnston et al.,
1992). Because citizens, even partisans, are notoriously inattentive to
politics, they must be mobilized anew every election (Johnston et al.,
1992, p. 79).” (Jerit: 567)
Negative campaigns mobilize people because they stimulate problem awareness,
stimulate anxiety about the candidates, and they make people perceive races as
being closer than they actually are (Martin: 557). They work to create strong
emotions based on various negative factors of the person or group, and this then
encourages activity for or against whatever is being advertised. Although
negative campaigns can stimulate activism, the negativity can also hinder activity
and leads voters to become apathetic and annoyed by such advertising.
“The use of campaign advertising to suppress turnout has escaped
universal condemnation presumably because the demobilizing impact of
negative advertising has been a well-kept secret, and a tacit assumption
among political consultants.” (Ansolabehere and Iyengar: 11)
Ansolabehere and Iyengar go on to say:
“As the independents in the middle stop voting, the partisans at the
extremes come to dominate electoral politics. It is the voice of this
increasingly small and increasingly polarized voting that public
representatives hear.” (10)
Negative campaigns do not promote democracy, as these campaigns work to
coerce the voter through misinformation. Negative campaigns do not promote
dialogue on “the issues”. We see that this form of campaign is undemocratic
because it suppresses voter turnout. According to the further research findings of
Ansolabehere and Iyengar,
“… advertising does pose a serious threat to democracy- but this threat is
not usually one that is laid at its feet. Voter suppression is profoundly
anti-democratic. It may not be the result of an explicit reaction to a
particular message; voters simply grow to dislike negativity and withdraw
accordingly.” (12)
Negative advertising leads the voter to become apathetic and despondent, rather
than advocate involvement. The greatest danger within the venue of negative
campaigns is in the way they lead the public away from the ideals of a democracy.
This is especially unsettling when revealing that, “Every winning campaign in the
last century has featured salient attacks on the opposition.” (Westen: 331) Were
these attacks promoting democracy?
2.6
An End to Dialogue, An End to Democracy
Modern negative campaigns work to encourage quick, subconscious
decisions not even focused on sentimentality and personal drama. The mission of
modern propaganda “is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and
mythical belief.” (Ellul: 25) The mind is a powerful mechanism and the media
and politicians know this and use this to perplex human reason. Communication
is a two way device, which promotes reason, intellect, and dialogue, but this is not
a part of the majority of negative campaigns, which do not engage the voter
beyond eliciting a fast, emotional response. The process of negative information
instills an automatic thought process, which is “quick, effortless, (and)
subconscious.” (Martin: 548) This is not encouraging the voter to deeper thought
or understanding, but rather it promotes a “quick, effortless, and subconscious”
judgment. Negative campaigns seek to manipulate and distort public opinion, and
play on their emotions to sway the vote. It is quite easy to sway some voters, as
many people have no interest in or a disgust for politics in general. As Jerit states,
“citizens, even partisans, are notoriously inattentive to politics.” (Jerit: 567)
Therefore, these negative appeals are used to rouse voters, but don’t inspire
thought or reason, especially if those voters have no interest in politics or political
issues to start with.
If a voter does have an interest in politics, other things can influence them
subconsciously, which can affect the status of democracy in the world today.
Author Kathleen Jamieson stated, “Our fears shape our perceptions of the facts.”
(33) Fear is a powerful force, especially when affecting the mind, which can
disturb logical human reasoning. Even the Founding Fathers in the United States
saw how emotion would come to affect the political realm and thus democracy.
“The framers of the U.S Constitution themselves were of many minds
about emotion, although in general… they feared the distorting influence
of emotion on the rational thought necessary for good decisions in a
democracy.” (Westen: 26)
If emotion and fear are able to have such an effect on human reasoning, it is also
affecting the way that the world functions. With the major influence of political
rhetoric, negative smear campaigns, and fear, no one can say for sure how many
voters present day actually vote with an understanding and knowledge of the
intrinsic issues.
If voters are making decisions on account of subconscious thought,
emotions, and fear, the idea of democracy could be coming to an end in the very
near future. Ex-communist Whittaker Chambers made mention of this very issue
in the early fifties saying,
“In this century, within the next decades, [it] will be decided for
generations whether all mankind is to become Communist, whether the
whole world is to become free, or whether, in the struggle, civilization as
we know it is to be completely destroyed. ” (Coulter: 8)
Dialogue, intellect, and reason are being weakened in the current venue of
negative campaigns, which could ultimately lead to the destruction of democracy
and freedom. The lack of reason and dialogue in politics and throughout society
is having some effect on democracy throughout the world. According to Arthur
Schlesinger Jr. regarding political rhetoric,
“Social fluidity, moral pretension, political and literary demagoguery,
corporate and academic bureaucratization and a false conception of
democracy are leading us into semantic chaos.” (Hart, 2000: 24)
Simply looking at the world of politics today or society in general, one can
already see the chaos that is having devastating effect on dialogue, freedom, and
human reason.
2.7
Conclusion
As discussed throughout this research, although the negative campaigning
history of practice within politics has been shown to be successful, it ultimately
weakens, if not defeats, the opportunity to have a democratic society. Negative
campaigns have become more widespread, not just in the political, but also
reaching into the public sector. Negative campaigns are successful in influencing
public opinion, by controlling the information being delivered to the public, in
such a way to domineer human reasoning. The public loves drama, thus media
uses drama to attract followers and to facilitate the information that is being fed to
the public. Negative campaigns work and they aggrandize the campaign to the
forefront, but even though they work, they are shown to destroy democratic
ideals. Negative campaigns do no promote dialogue or intellectual reasoning.
Negative campaigns do not promote democracy.
Chapter 3 – Note on Method
3.1
Introduction
The method of research for this paper relied on a strong combination of
both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The qualitative research
consisted of published writings in order to initiate the hypothesis, laying the
foundation for the quantitative research. The qualitative findings laid a certain
philosophical theory, which would converge with the later findings within the
quantitative method of research. The quantitative method comprised of a series of
interviews and further analytical research. Both methods of research were crucial
to the theory and the outcome of this paper. Although each was important, neither
was without its own complications. Using the proper research tools, including
analytical and logical reasoning, this dissertation was brought to fulfillment.
3.2
Qualitative Research
The first stage of research was centered on the study of academic journal
articles, books, and other published works. The articles and books used
throughout this research included both “sides” of the political spectrum, the left
(liberal) and the right (conservative). The qualitative research included various
angles of academic study and theory including: political, philosophical,
sociological, and psychological. This section of research offered a foundation for
further intricacies to be revealed in the quantitative research.
3.3
Quantitative Research
The second stage of research focused on a series of interviews and
discussions conducted with a variety of individuals who could offer insight to
some aspect of this study through personal experience, opinion, or academic
insight. This section of research evolved in the analysis of current news reports,
newspaper articles, commentaries, and television interviews. This section of
research built a bridge from the qualitative research and conveyed a coherent
manifestation of the qualitative findings.
3.4
The Difficult Side of Research
As discussed previously in this paper, the media is at the heart of all
information being presented to the public. Since some of the major issues and
events presented in this study are American-based, it was difficult to find non-bias
sources, in order to present a well balanced analysis of the issues within the topic
of negative campaigning. Most political issues, including negative campaigning,
have some depth of controversy within them. This paper and the issues being
presented are no exception. The media and much of society harbor strong
emotions regarding the topics presented here, thus great consideration had to be
taken in order to protect the dignity of this discussion. But, ultimately, the topics
discussed here are crucial topics within political communications and need to be
brought to the forefront of political dialogue.
3.5
Conclusion
Both qualitative and quantitative methods of research were crucial to the
fulfillment of this thesis. The qualitative research of published writings set forth
the hypothesis and laid the foundation for the quantitative research. The research
constructed through the qualitative set the tone for the rest of the research and
helped further the analysis and understanding of the quantitative findings. The
quantitative research consisted of a series of interviews and miscellaneous source
research, which brought this paper to fruition. Both methods of research were
assembled and brought the original theory behind the qualitative research findings
to fulfillment. This paper present important subtopics within negative
campaigning and political communications, and intends to orient the discussion
and press for further depth in political communication.
Chapter 4 – The Irish Negative Campaign Situation
4.1
Introduction
America is the heartland of negative campaigning. This type of
campaigning can also be found throughout the world, even in Ireland. Although it
is not as common as in America, Ireland has its own experiences of negative
smear campaigns. A constant, and rather simple, Irish smear campaign regards
the Taoiseach Brian Cowen as “BIFFO”, which means “Big Ignorant Fucker
From Offaly”. Although this seems harmless or hilarious to some, what is this
campaign accomplishing? Some may ask, are these types of campaigns fruitful?
Two major events in Irish history, the Irish Republican Army hunger strikes, and
more recently, the Lisbon Treaty, (both which had negative campaigns attached to
them), are examples to how politicians attacked activists. The hunger strikers
were ridiculed and called “terrorists” and “criminals”, while they were fighting to
be recognized as “political prisoners”. More recently, with the Lisbon Treaty, a
group from Fine Gael bombarded the office of the anti-Lisbon group Coir with an
ad-mobile stating, “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire”. Did the name-calling in both of
these situations promote dialogue? Did these negative campaigns ‘attack’ the
issues or the persons involved? To determine this, each situation must be
researched further and the findings must be carefully analyzed.
4.2
The Terrorist-ization of the Hunger Strikers
Throughout the years, many Irish Republicans were jailed for various
reasons. “A draconian law, called the Special Powers Act (SPA), gave the
authorities exceptional powers to arrest, detain without trial, and suppress political
dissent.” (Moloney, 2002: 39) If a person was found to simply be in the same car
as a gun, like Bobby Sands, they could be arrested and placed in jail. Once in jail,
the ridicule against nationalists continued and the civil rights cries were silenced.
As Republican Brendan Hughes, who had been jailed, explained: “We were
locked in the cells. We were getting badly treated. We were getting beaten and
abused.” (Taylor: 229) A campaign was started by a group of republicans who
had been put in jail, for reasons highlighted under “internment” rules, in which
these prisoners went on hunger strike in order to be recognized by the government
as “political prisoners”.
The Prime Minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, began a campaign of
sorts against the hunger strikers, calling them “criminals” and “terrorists”. When
asked about the hunger strikers and their wish to be regarded as political prisoner,
Margaret Thatcher stated, “There can be no political justification for murder or
any other crime. The Government will never concede political status to the
hunger strikers or to any others convicted of criminal offences in the province.”
(Taylor: 232-3) She regarded the hunger strikers as criminals, even though many
of their offences were as simple as being in a car with a gun. One of the most
renowned hunger strikers is Bobby Sands, who was arrested simply for that same
reason. Sands was a member of the IRA, but was arrested for no serious reason
except that he was in the same car as a gun. Thatcher spoke about Bobby Sands
saying, "We shall continue in our efforts to stamp out terrorism. Mr. Sands was a
convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice his
organization did not give to many of their victims." (Thatcher: 6 May 1981)
These hunger strikers who were regarded as “heroes” by many people throughout
the world, inspired hunger strikes and rallies in unity throughout the world, yet
Thatcher campaigned against them and didn’t speak of “issues” or enter into
dialogue about the hunger strike, yet relinquished all discussion to a campaign of
name-calling.
In 2008, a film documenting the hunger strikes and focusing on Bobby
Sands was released. The film set out to depict the trials and tribulations of
everyone involved, even documenting the stresses of life as a guard in the Maze
prison. According to the filmmaker Steve McQueen, he wanted to make a film
which would explore the issues which led to the hunger strike in 1981 (Derry
Journal: 21 May 2008). Politicians, including East Derry DUP MP Gregory
Campbell, criticized the film and continued the negative attacks that Margaret
Thatcher had unleashed against the hunger strikers. Campbell said,
"Bobby Sands was a convicted terrorist who belonged to an illegal
paramilitary organisation [sic] that at the time of his death had already
inflicted death and serious injury upon hundreds of innocent people in
Northern Ireland. The fact that a bloodthirsty terrorist criminal chooses to
starve himself to death in prison does not in any way legitimize [sic] or
justify the barbaric terrorism in which they were engaged." (Ibid.)
The Daily Mail also ran an article entitled, “Hunger: More Pro-Terrorist
Propaganda” (Tookey: 30 October 2008), inciting that this film promotes terrorist
propaganda. As stated earlier by the film’s creator, this film set out to promote
dialogue about the hunger strikes and the issues that were behind the protest, but
the negative campaign against the hunger strikers destroyed any dialogue that was
possible. To kindle this type of negative campaigning, the opportunity for
dialogue is destroyed, rather than promoted. This film did not set out to glorify
the hunger strikers, the IRA, nor any terrorist activity; but rather, to promote
dialogue.
According to Historian Bowyer J. Bell, “Always during the Troubles the
vulnerable, not the guilty, paid” (277). The hunger strikers, including Bobby
Sands, were vulnerable while in Maze prison, as they had no platform to counter
the attacks against them and their mission. When Margaret Thatcher attacked
them and called them “criminals” and “terrorists”, there was no outlet for them to
contend her claims. And now with the ten men dead from the 1981 hunger strike,
including Bobby Sands, the attacks continue and again the hunger strikers have no
opportunity to discredit these assertions, and even the course of history seems to
be shifting against them. This is another testament to the fact that negative
campaigns may work and may provoke unfair hatred of persons or their mission
without promoting dialogue or democracy.
4.3
The Lisbon Treaty Debate: Battling Negative Campaigns
The Lisbon Treaty is the most recent, and one of the most historical,
examples of negative campaigning in Ireland. Most negative campaigns were
focused on the major issues: jobs, the European Union, and fundamental human
rights. With the historic potentiality of the passage of the Lisbon Treaty, strong
opinions laid on either side of the vote, thus the Lisbon course brought negative
campaigns from both sides. The “No” campaigners focused on what they
perceived to be the negative aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, while the “Yes”
campaigners focused on the positive aspects of the treaty, but also warned
vehemently about the perceived negative consequences of voting against it. But,
there was one particular negative campaign that claimed to be debating the issues
like the other campaigns, but was simply an attack against an Anti-Lisbon
organization, Coir. This organization was one of the most vocal groups and
debatably ran the most successful campaign on the “No” side, and possibly of the
whole campaign. According to experts, Coir ran the best campaign, the most
creative campaign, and attained what every political campaign aims for, the
“talkability” factor (Minihan: 18 September 2009). The co-founder of the
advertising agency Cawley Nea said regarding Coir’s campaign,
“Most eyecatching, yes. First in, yes. But much more significantly, the
content of what’s in the posters is focused. There’s passion, there’s intent,
and tragically, there’s intelligence behind it.” (Ibid.)
The posters were acknowledged to be hugely successful and generated a huge
amount of discussion, in particular the Cóir poster dealing with the downward
pressure on wages exerted by the laws of the European Union protecting
competition and the free movement of labor, though some might argue that was a
form of negative campaigning in and of itself (Appendix: Figure 4a). Fine Gael
Senator Paschal Donohue said regarding this particular campaign,
“Cóir was arguing that the minimum wage was going to contract to 1.84,
which was factually incorrect because the Irish minimum wage was never
going to decline to the level... So, it was a very misleading charge to
make, but also a very effective one. The feedback that we got during the
campaign, the feedback we got on the doorstep, was that it was a charge
that was working. It was catching people’s attention.” (Donohue: 1
September 2010)
Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin also verified that there was evidence
that Cóir’s suggestion the minimum wage might fall to €1.84 if the Lisbon Treaty
is passed has “gained traction” (Minihan: 18 September 2009). Minister Martin
stated,
“In terms of the minimum wage, the Cóir group put forward that poster
with the question mark. We do have some evidence that it gained traction
for some time and may still have traction in some quarters, and we’re very
anxious to nail that lie.” (Ibid.)
While Minister Martin and Senator Donohue both recognize that Cóir’s 1.84
poster was a success and a simultaneous lie and they intended to challenge the lie,
they never engaged in dialogue with Coir. One of Coir’s spokesmen confronted
Minister Martin’s comments saying, “We challenge Minister Martin to debate this
issue with Cóir . . . because the facts support Cóir’s case and the Minister knows
that.” (Minihan: 18 September 2009) Cóir's posters then in turn became the focus
of negative campaigning from the “Yes” side, who accused Cóir of lying. Cóir
responded by saying that the poster raised important questions about the right to
earn a living wage, and said that Lisbon would make it easier for subcontractors
to bring in labor from other EU countries and pay them less than the Irish
minimum wage (Ui Bhriain: 6 September 2010). The issues being covered
throughout the campaign were complex but “Yes” campaigners decided to attack
the organization instead. From examining the newspaper reports we can see that
Minister Michael Martin led the charge against Cóir, describing them as
“shadowy” and claiming that they were linked to the pro-life group Youth
Defence, which he seemed to think would negatively affect their standing with
voters (Minihan: 18 September 2010). Members of Young Fine Gael and Fine
Gael took the attack on Coir to the streets and brought the negative campaign
against Coir straight to their doorstep, literally.
On the morning of 30th of September 2009, a mere two days before the
Lisbon Treaty vote in Ireland, Senator Paschal Donohue and a group of Young
Fine Gael members, stood in protest outside of Coir’s head office. This campaign
consisted of a small group of FG members showing up in front of Cóir’s main
office with an ad-mobile billboard stating, “Liar, Liar Pants of Fire” against Cóir
(Appendix: Figure 4b). Senator Donohue explained that this was a crucial
campaign for their party stating, “It was very small (campaign)… but, it was one
that had to be done in order to get media airtime, for our party to say that the Coir
are lying.” (Donohue: Ibid) According to this statement, FG had no intention of
promoting dialogue, but rather simply wanted “media airtime” and to win in the
attack against Cóir. When the researcher asked Senator Donohue if there was
ever any intention of meeting Cóir’s challenge for a debate, the Senator appalled
said, “Oh God no! Why would we do that? No, no, no!” (Ibid) He continued by
saying,
“It was an element of surprise. So, it was to unsettle them… they didn’t
want that and didn’t need that. There is always a degree of you have to try
and unsettle you opponent. You have to do something that’s going to put
them on the back foot (defensive) and do something that’s going to
unsettle any plans that they have. And we were by that stage, two or three
days outside of polling day. And for the Coir guys to turn up at their
election HQ the morning of one of the final days of campaigning and find
the Fine Gael billboard parked outside the front door, had an effect on
them.”
If Minister of Foreign Affairs Micheal Martin and the rest of Fine Gael were so
confident in their campaign for a “Yes” vote, why did they resort to a negative
attack against an organization, rather than a debate on the true issues facing the
Irish voter?
Cóir’s tactics engineered a negative campaign to be more successful than
the simple smear campaigns that Fine Gael and Fianna Fail Minister Martin put
forth. According to Cóir's Niamh Uí Bhriain, the personal attacks simply aroused
curiosity.
"The attacks on Cóir, rather than on what we were saying, actually served
to highlight the poster and our arguments against Lisbon. The number of
hits on our website took a jump as the denouncements went on and on
during August and September - and people were asking more and more
about the possible effects on wages. We were also very active at the doors
explaining our position and that made all the talk about 'shadowy people'
just seem daft. Plus, trying to cast a connection with Youth Defence as a
liability just didn't work with people.” (Ui Bhriain: 6 September 2010).
Cóir was out instigating debate amongst voters and challenging the messages on
the actual issues being put forth through the Lisbon Treaty. Their campaign was
focused on the issues that mattered most to the Irish people and besides a few
isolated incidents, there were rarely any personal negative attacks coming from
Cóir or its members. But, the “Yes” side seemed so desperate to win that in the
final weeks leading up to the vote, they panicked and spawned negative personal
attacks against members of the “No” side, especially Cóir.
Cóir’s Niamh Ui Bhriain wasn’t phased by the negative attacks against
Cóir, especially not by Fine Gael’s “Liar, Liar” display. When asked about the
“Liar, Liar” campaign against Cóir, Ms. Ui Bhriain said,
"Funnily enough Young Fine Gael didn't seem to get the memo on the
€1.84 poster. With just days to go they arrived down one morning outside
Cóir's offices with a really cheesy mobile billboard calling Cóir 'liars'. It
was clearly meant to be a well choreographed photo-op, but fell apart
pretty much from the outset, when just one Coir volunteer came out of the
office and stood in the middle of the Young Fine Gaelers, who bizarrely
were wearing Cóir t-shirts, with a poster and interrupted poor old Pascal
Donohue's patter to the media. Everyone seemed to forget their lines then
and the whole thing fell apart. It was like a capsule master class in how not
to do negative campaigning: badly-thought out, easily disrupted, obviously
the Young Fine Gael members were inexperienced and just didn't know
how to react, and then to cap it all off a passer-by noticed Pascal and came
over to complain about some local matter. The news reports were
hilarious, and on RTE the reporter said that Cóir didn't let YFG away with
it. For Fine Gael it was a waste of money and time. For Coir it was a ten
minute distraction and another chance to get our posters on TV.” (Ibid)
The campaign launched by Fine Gael against Cóir seemed to be quite confusing
to Ui Bhriain, but she wasn’t the only one. Even one of the journalists covering
the story was puzzled by the Fine Gael endeavor, especially by the members of
the protest wearing Cóir Shirts. The Irish Times reported, “Some people at the
event wore red T-shirts with the word ‘Cóir’ on them. They said they were
representing Young Fine Gael.” (Minihan: 30 September 2009) The most effect
campaign will have a clear and concise message, which will speak to the public,
this campaign was evidently anything but clear and concise.
Senator Donohue, on the other hand, was quite confident in the success of
their campaign against Cóir. He spoke of the ultimate intent of the “Liar, Liar”
campaign saying,
“You get into the final week of a campaign, the final two or three days,
you’re just interested in winning, in getting your message across… as
opposed to having a dialogue, you do the dialogue bit earlier in the
campaign. This thing’s all about getting your argument out there and then
trying to demolish the opponent’s arguments. What we did there with the
“Liar, Liar pants on fire was just part of that.” (Donohue: 1 September
2010).
The research presented in this paper would show that this particular campaign that
Senator Donohue was a crucial part of was actually not a successful campaign at
all. It didn’t promote dialogue, it was not thought provoking, and it didn’t even
seem to unhinge Cóir, which according to Senator Donohue, was part of their
main intent.
On the other hand, although experts expressed a great review of Cóir’s
campaign and dialogue was promoted through this campaign, they lost the battle
against the Lisbon Treaty. When asked about Cóir’s loss to the Yes vote in the
Lisbon Treaty Referendum in Ireland, Ui Bhriain said,
"The day before the vote the Irish Times went canvassing and found that
Cóir's posters (on all the issues) had a massive impact - they said the €1.84
poster was raised repeatedly at the doors. But at that stage the fears raised
about the economy had gripped people. We could see it ourselves at the
doors: people were losing jobs and their homes and they were being told it
would get worse. It terrified them." (Ui Bhriain: 6 September 2010).
Cóir exhausted every avenue of campaigning and seemed to tirelessly debate the
issues, but they still lost. The only real possibility is that Cóir’s Niamh Ui Bhriain
is right. And sure enough, in researching, further, the week following the
referendum, the European Commission polled Irish people to see why they voted
“Yes”. The majority of them said they voted “Yes” because of economic fears
(Smyth: 13 October 2009).
4.4
Conclusion
Negative campaigns alienate people and force people into positions of
anger and despair. The Hunger Strikers were ridiculed and called “terrorists” and
“criminals”, while they were striking to be recognized as “political prisoners”.
Then, more recently with the Lisbon Treaty, a group from Fine Gael bombarded
the office of the anti-Lisbon group Cóir and called “Liar, Liar Pants on Fire”.
Neither of these campaigns promoted dialogue about the underlying issues or
offered further insight into the problems facing the Irish people. The negative
campaigns’ strengths were to encourage hate, anger, uneducated attacks, and
fearmonger.
Chapter 5 – The 2008 United States Presidential Campaign
5.1
Introduction
During the 2008 United States Presidential election campaign, many
vicious, unfair, and mainly dishonest negative attacks commenced, against each
of the candidates, but some were more vicious and unfair than others. Barack
Obama was attacked because he personally had a tenuous relationship with
terrorist Bill Ayers (though any charges against him would eventually be
dropped), thus insinuating that because Obama was friends with Ayers, he might
also be a terrorist. John McCain was attacked for being a war veteran and for
being supportive of the war in Iraq, claiming that McCain was a “warmonger”,
amid many other slanderous claims. Sarah Palin was attacked on various aspects
of her life personal life and beliefs, rarely focusing on the main issues facing
voters, including an attack claiming that she was a warmonger-type like her
running mate, John McCain, because she supports the war in Iraq and the gun
carrying rights of American citizens. These negative attacks yet again prove that
negative campaigns can work, if the media is behind you, but overall these attacks
do nothing for democracy and promoting dialogue with regards to the real issues.
5.2
Barack Hussein Obama: The Name of a Terrorist?
Throughout his career as a Politician, Barack Obama has been attacked for
his particular link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright is a dynamic pastor, who
preached liberation theology, was involved in radical politics and delivered racist,
hate and profanity filled sermons to his Church in Illinois (Kantor: 30 April
2007). One Sunday in particular, Wright blamed the September 11th attack on
America, saying that they “were a consequence of violent American policies”
(Ibid). When the news broke of Wright’s comments regarding September 11th,
Barack Obama was quick to speak out against Wright’s remarks. “The violence
of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” he said in a recent interview.
He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the
attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative.”
(Ibid)
At times, Obama was haunted by attacks against his relationship with
Wright, and this relationship could mean that Obama may share some of the same
ideals and radical beliefs as the Wright. But, Obama wanted to make it clear that
he should not be linked to the extreme political beliefs that Wright held, stating,
“We don’t agree on everything. I’ve never had a thorough conversation with him
about all aspects of politics.” (Ibid) This situation between Obama and Reverend
Wright could correlate with what happened to the Hunger Strikers, who were
criticized for things that their fellow IRA members were doing. Just because
someone is acquainted with a person or group who engages in terrorist activity,
doesn’t mean that this person participates in terrorist activities.
In October 2008, Sarah Palin was quoted as saying that Barack Obama
had a relationship with terrorists, thus inciting the famous phrase “you are who
your friends are”. Sarah Palin said in a speech she gave on the campaign trail in
October 2008, "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America it seems as being
so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own
country." (Phillips: 4 October 2008) She was referring to Obama’s relationship
with Bill Ayers, of whom he had been friends with and known for years (Malkin:
69-71). This moniker that Palin painted with regards to Obama was a clever
smear campaign and obviously gained people’s attention, as America is quite
fearful of terrorists after various terrorist attacks, especially with a history such as
America including the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center
attack, and then of course September 11th. Overall, this campaign didn’t gain a
massive amount of traction, thus another unsuccessful attempt at negative
campaigning against a person.
5.3
McCain: An Old Vampire Warmonger and an Adulterer
During the 2008 election cycle, like Obama, John McCain was no stranger
to the negative attacks. One of the underlying attacks on McCain throughout the
whole 2008 election was that he was “too old” to be President (Simon: 13
February 2008). Part of this could have been due to McCain’s own commentary
on his age. He often used the tagline, “I am older than dirt and have more scars
than Frankenstein.” (Ibid) While he was able to joke about his age, the joke was
on him, and the negative smears ensued. McCain was then attacked with claims
that he was a “warmonger”, simply because he has been an active member of the
Navy during the Vietnam War, was a major supporter of the Military, and also
supported the war in Iraq. Calling John McCain a “warmonger” was only a halftruth, as he was simply supportive of what the U.S. Military promoting, while not
necessarily fostering war-like ideas.
Liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz referred to John McCain as a
“warmonger” and unleashed other similar attacks against the 2008 Presidential
candidate. When confronted about his misleading attacks, Schultz stood behind
his controversial comments against McCain saying, “John fit the description.
Warmonger is a label. It is not a personal shot at John McCain. I’m sorry, John,
but the label sticks. He is a warmonger.” (Balan: 7 April 2008) While Schultz’s
verbal attacks may hold some substance, they are an unfair attack and ultimately
foster misinformation, instead of information on the real issues facing voters. The
“warmonger” title continued gaining attention, including making headlines with
the controversial photos posted in the October 2008 issue of The Atlantic.
The Atlantic magazine featured John McCain as their cover story for their
October 2008 issue, with a story entitled “The Wars of John McCain” chronicling
McCain’s life as an active member of the Navy during the Vietnam war and how
his experiences have come to inform this thoughts regarding war (Goldberg:
October 2008). The renowned photographer Jill Greenberg was chosen as the
photographer for McCain’s story, but Greenberg remained anything but neutral
and let her personal politics sabotage the nature of the photos of McCain. What is
worse is that the Atlantic actually printed the photos that Greenberg submitted to
them. One of the photos (Appendix: Figure 5a) showed a smiling John McCain
with smeared lipstick on his face and had the caption, “It was really fun to cheat
on my car-injury-disabled first wife”. Another photo in this collection incited the
“warmonger” moniker (Appendix: Figure 5b) showing John McCain with blood
dripping from his ‘vampire fangs’ and has the tagline, “I am a bloodthirsty
warmonger!” This attack, while similar to the claim that Obama is friends with
terrorists, may have substance to the argument, is misleading and ultimately
untrue.
These attacks against McCain were unfair and ultimately undemocratic.
The attacks were personal against McCain and didn’t address any crucial issues
facing the voter. They did not promote dialogue, gossip maybe, but not dialogue
about real politics. In both of these major attacks against McCain, it is evident
that the media plays an intrinsic role in what is being produced and ultimately
what is presented directly to the public. Although the attacks against Barack
Obama and John McCain may have caused some upset, the real victim of the
2008 Presidential election negative campaign machine was, in fact, Sarah Palin.
5.4
Sarah Palin: Terrorist, Pitbull, and Hockey Mom
Sarah Palin was the largest commodity to come out of the 2008
Presidential campaign and simultaneously faced the most negative attacks. She
went from being a unknown Governor of Alaska, to being the Vice-Presidential
candidate for the Republican Party. John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his
running mate on 29th of August 2008 and she became an instant popular
sensation, but the attacks were not far behind. Palin first gained the nickname
“Sarah the Bear” on her own merit, because she referred to herself as a “Mama
bear” when speaking about her kids. Another nickname for Palin was “The
Pitbull”, which also came after a comment she made. During her acceptance
speech of the Republican nomination for Vice-President she said, “What is the
difference between a Hockey mom and a Pit bull? Lipstick!” (E.T.: 3 September
2008) These were monikers that other mothers could attach too and this gained
Sarah Palin popularity among the public. But, then the attacks started.
Salon magazine ran an article claiming that the only difference between
Sarah Palin and Muslims was “lipstick” (Cole: 9 September 2008). It was in this
article that she was labeled as sharing the beliefs of Muslim fundamentalists, in
which they referred to McCain as a “bigot” for wanting to battle against Muslim
extremists and according to the article choosing one as his running mate. The
article tried to reason tries to convince the reader that her Christian moral
standards are actually that of a Muslim extremist, an unfair and unjustified attack
on Sarah Palin. Shortly before this Salon article, a contrived photo of Palin in an
American flag themed bikini holding a rifle (Appendix: 5c) surfaced. This picture
promoted a certain campaign against Palin’s views on hunting, war, and her
image as a strong, independent woman. Although this campaign may seem
trivial, it was a widely viewed image and played a role in degrading the
personhood of Sarah Palin. With these and other vicious campaigns against Sarah
Palin, why were these unfair attacks being waged, instead of getting down to the
issues? Did Journalists play a part in these attacks against Palin or were they
simply victims of the negative campaign machine?
In July 2010, a story broke regarding the transcripts of journalists working
together to compose a coalition of attacks against Sarah Palin through popular
chat website called JournoList. JournoList was founded in 2007 by Washington
Post blogger Ezra Klein and became an online gathering place for several hundred
journalists, academics and political activists, which was seen as an outlet for
discussion and connecting young writers to top sources (Strong: 25 July 2010).
But, according to the reports regarding the transcripts of JournoList, this was
moreso an outlet to plan negative attacks against Palin and other conservatives.
One of the main attacks launched by this popular website, was engineered by Ed
Kilgore, managing editor of the Democratic Strategist blog. Kilgore argued that
journalists would help the Obama campaign the most by attacking Palin’s beliefs
saying, “The criticism of her really, really needs to be ideological, not just about
experience. If we concede she’s a ‘maverick,’ we will have done John McCain an
enormous service.” (Strong: 22 July 2010) To that, Suzanne Nossel, chief of
operations for Human Rights Watch, replied: “I think it is and can be spun as a
profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes
can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her
qualifications or views.” (Ibid.) Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones,
loved the idea stating, “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? –
write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And
that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket.” (Ibid.) These negative
attacks against Palin continued on various topics including attacking her on her
son with Down syndrome, her daughter’s teen pregnancy, and a slew of other
attacks that they felt applicable. On the other side of the spectrum, these same
professionals discussed ways to divert all attacks against Obama, i.e. the
Reverend Wright drama; the same people that defended Palin were fueling the
similar attacks against Obama.
These attacks against Sarah Palin were unfair and ultimately baseless
slander. Never in these campaigns were the crucial issues facing voters evident.
These negative campaigns against Palin are further evidence that negative
campaigns do not promote dialogue or democracy.
5.5
Conclusion
The negative campaigns unleashed against the candidates of the 2008
Presidential election season were vicious, unfair, and mainly dishonest. Barack
Obama was attacked for his relationship with former radical and terrorist Bill
Ayers, publicizing the fact that he had some tenuous connections with the now
reformed professor and thus insinuating that Obama might also be a terrorist.
John McCain was attacked for being a war veteran and for being supportive of the
war in Iraq, with claims that McCain was a “warmonger”. And Sarah Palin was
attacked on many levels and consistently throughout the campaign for myriad
details of her personal life and beliefs, including an attack also claiming that she
was a warmonger-type because she supported guns and hunting. By the time the
election in November 2008, most Americans seemed to hold Obama is high
regard, where Palin had been rhetorically destroyed in a matter of months. The
2008 campaign became an election based on attacks on Sarah Palin and a
glorification of Barack Obama and seemed to have little or nothing to do with
“the issues”. The negative attacks yet again prove that negative campaigns can
work, if the media is behind you, but overall these attacks do nothing for
democracy and promoting dialogue with regards to the real issues.
Chapter Six: The Obama Nation: Post 2008 Election
6.1
Introduction
During the 2008 Presidential election in the US, Americans were promised
“hope”, “change”, and a whole list of other assertions. To many, what was
promised has not materialized within the current U.S. Administration, and have
taken to the streets in protest. Others are supportive of the current administration
and are happy with their performance, and are proud to express this support.
What is happening in the U.S. at the moment though, is that negative campaigns
against ordinary, everyday citizens are becoming the norm. While there are still a
few attacks against the President, the negative campaigns gaining the most
attention receiving the most traction are the attacks against ordinary citizens.
When Obama was first elected, there was a campaign that blazoned the streets of
Los Angeles painting Obama as the “Joker” from “The Dark Night” of the
popular Batman film series (Appendix: Figure 6a). Although this campaign and
some other s adamantly against Obama, these attacks have not gained much
traction. But, the negative campaigns that are inundating the media circuit are the
attacks against various individuals and groups. The Tea Party movement in the
U.S. has gained an extensive amount of attention since its conception in April
2009, including rabid negative smear campaigns. The most recent series of
negative attacks in the U.S. have been waged against anyone who is against the
location of the controversial Ground Zero Mosque. These attacks which are not
encouraging dialogue on the real issues and instead are creating further hatred and
segregation amidst Americans and inhibits true American freedom.
6.2
Tea Parties for Terrorists?
One of the most prominent negative campaigns over the last year and a
half in the United States has been the attack against the Tea Party movement. The
Tea Party is the topic of constant smear campaigns by politicians and the media,
while the Tea Party movement was simply created as an outlet to give everyday
Americans a voice. The Tea Party’s mission, according to their official website
states,
“The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government
spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and
mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our
three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited
Government and Free Markets.” (Tea Party Patriots)
The Tea Party was purportedly created to give all Americans a voice and an outlet
to speak out against the unpopular policies that the government was promoting,
against the wishes of the American people (the problem being that “unpopular
policies” is poorly defined within the movement at times). A most recent
example of the Tea Party platform was during the Healthcare reform battle, when
the majority of Americans did not support the Healthcare Reform bill
(Rasmussen: 21 March 2010), yet the Government did not listen to their
constituents wishes and voted it through Congress anyway (of course, the
opposition was likely a case of negative campaigning influencing public opinion
in the first place). The Tea Party is an effort to give Americans a voice, so that
the government can serve its constituents better, at least in theory. Instead of
dealing with the concerns brought forth by the Tea Party movement, the Obama
Administration worked to silence them through a negative attack. On the 7th of
April 2009, a mere few days prior to the first official Tea Party Rally, the
Department of Homeland Security released a document attacking “rightwing
extremists” (United States, 2009) and are claiming that “the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to
be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization." (Ibid:
3) The DHS report goes into further detail to interpret “rightwing extremism”
stating,
“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into
those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented
(based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those
that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state
or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may
include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as
opposition to abortion or immigration."(Ibid: 2)
Although the document doesn’t specifically attack the Tea Party (it was firstly a
response to several violent attacks that had occurred following the election), it is
quite evident that this is the group that this negative campaign is being forged
against. In response to this document and to comment on the actual intent behind
the Tea Party movement, the National Coordinator of the Tea Party, Rob Gaudet
stated,
“Part of it is Obama, but only because the public disagrees with his
policies and there is a fear of Chicago style politics being in control of so
much. It’s the size of government, the spending, and the tampering with
American freedom. [American freedoms] have done so much not only for
this country but countries throughout the world.” (Gaudet: 30 August
2010)
The ideal of the Tea Party is simply to give a voice to the people who don’t have
one within government (thought its actual effect might be different) and “to be the
change we want to see in the world” (Ibid). Although the DHS document speaks
about “rightwing extremism” and likens right wing activists to “terrorists”, the
DHS admits later in the document that there is “no specific information that
rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but (they) may be
gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.”
(U.S.: 3) There is no proof of violence or terrorist activity within the Tea Party,
but the attacks continue to develop, and Obama’s Administration is not the only
one’s creating these negative attacks.
In another edition of the JournoList, the website which harbored schemes
to launch negative attacks in the media against Sarah Palin, were caught
organizing smear campaign ideas against the Tea Party. In a recently released
transcript of discussions on the popular website JournoList, which is made up of
journalists, politicians, and other professionals; the members strategized about
various monikers to attach to the Tea Partiers including calling them “fascists”
and likening them to “the Nazis” (The Daily Caller: 29 July 2010). Every avenue
in the media is full of constant attacks on the Tea Partiers with claims that they
are “racist”, “fascists”, and even “terrorists”, thus the Obama Administration is
not the only group formulating this negative campaign. Rob Gaudet of the Tea
Party stated regarding these attacks my the media, “The media wants flash points
for ratings. That’s why you see the extreme elements of the Tea Party (smeared)
across the news.” (Gaudet: 30 August 2010). The media continues to wrongfully
attach the Tea Party movement (i.e. Rich: 27 February 2010), but the Tea Party
continues to move forward, challenge Government in an appropriate manner, and
encourage dialogue on the true issues facing Americans. The Tea Party’s Gaudet
said,
“There are over 2,300 branches of the Tea Party listed on our website,
over 400,000 members on our FB page, we are adding 5,000-6,000
members a day, and our website gets over 2 million hits a day. The
dialogue (about the issues) isn’t happening in the political sector and it’s
not happening in the academic sector… but, it’s definitely happening at
the lower level, at the grassroots level. We see that every day in what we
are doing.” (30 August 2010)
Although the negative campaign against the Tea Party continues to run rampant,
their organization is rising above these attacks and promoting true democratic
ideals.
6.3
The Mosque Controversy at Ground Zero
The most recent example of negative campaigning in the United States is
regarding the controversial Ground Zero Mosque and anyone who speaks out
against the building of this Mosque at the particular location of the September 11th
attack. Nearly 70 percent of all Americans oppose the controversial plan to build
the mosque just blocks away from the solemn site in lower Manhattan while just
29 percent favor the construction (CBS: 11 August 2010). Broken down by party
affiliation, 54 percent of Democrats oppose the plans while 82 percent of
Republicans disapprove. Meanwhile, 70 percent of independents said they are
against the proposal (Ibid). Yet, constant attacks have emerged against the
citizens who are simply promoting dialogue on this topic.
Last year, plans were released for a Mosque to be built two blocks from
the site of the World Trade Center terrorist attack on September 11th, 2001.
Things were largely quiet on this front, until the summer of 2010, when the news
brought debate from both sides (Brynbaum: 22 August 2010); some people
vehemently in favor of the Mosque being built in this location, others are
adamantly against this Mosque being built in this particular location. According
to recent polls, “Nearly three of four Americans -- 71 percent -- say building a
mosque so close to the site is not appropriate while just 22 percent say it is
appropriate.” (Sundby: 25 August 2010) The issue that is being discussed is the
location, not the Mosque itself nor Islam. Although the facts are simple and this
should be a debate about the location and whether or not it is “appropriate”, the
people who are against the Mosque being built so close to Ground Zero (he site of
the terrorist attack on September 11th) are now falling victim to a negative
campaign claiming they are “Islamophobic” or anti-American freedom. Daisy
Khan, who is working alongside her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, to direct
this project said of the people against this initiative, "It's beyond Islamophobia.
It's hate of Muslims." (Catan: 22 August 2010) In another attack, facilitated by
New York Times writer Frank Rich, made claims that everyone on the Right side
of the political spectrum is “Islamaphobic” (Rich: 21 August 2010) This is
negative campaign against a significant amount of citizens, who were simply
entering into a discussion about ‘the issues’ and using their American freedom of
speech to voice those opinions. These negative attacks, yet again, hinder
dialogue, debate, and ultimately democracy. The Islamaphobic charges forged
towards anyone who is against the Mosque, completely diverts the attention away
from the real debate at hand.
According to Imam Rauf and the promoters of the Mosque, the intent of
building it there and in that exact location was to promote tolerance and dialogue
(Catan: 22 August 2010). What has happened with the negative campaign
launched against the citizens who are against the Mosque being built in that
particular location, is that all actual conversations centered around the real issues,
have been suppressed. In a recent interview, Rudy Guiliani, who was Mayor of
New York City at the time of the terrorist attack on September 11th, explained the
true issue at the heart of the debate about the Mosque saying,
“The theory of this mosque, if you can believe them is, they want to do
healing. They want to create inclusiveness. And of course what they’re
doing by putting it up is offending the people who have been the most hurt
by September 11th. They’re creating tremendous anguish for the families
that don’t deserve anymore anguish. The last thing that you would want to
do, if you were truly interested in healing, is to create more anguish for
them, create more pain for them. The reality is, you can’t escape the fact
that this attack was done in the same of “Islamic extremism”. I understand
that most Muslims are good people and they don’t endorse this kind of
activity. But, they have to decide whether they are healers or warriors.”
(Guiliani: 20 August 2010)
Guiliani was in the forefront of the recovery after the attacks and in many ways
was at the heart of the healing of a Nation, thus he offers an intrinsic perspective
on the Mosque situation, from the American perspective. While some argue that
it is simply inappropriate, he expresses a dignified perspective on the choice
facing the promoters of the plans for the Ground Zero Mosque. Raheel Raza, who
is an Author and is a Board member of the Muslim Canadian Congress expressed
a similar opinion to Guiliani and added an introspective view into the Muslim side
of this debate. Raza said,
“I oppose the idea along with other members of the Muslim Canadian
Congress because it’s confrontational. It is in bad faith and it doesn’t
really set up any kind of dialogue or discussion on tolerance. How does
building a mosque in the very place where Muslims murdered so many
Americans, would create any kind of respect. We don’t show our caring
for them by being intolerant. Building a mosque or a place of worship in
the particular spot across the stress from Ground Zero is a slap in the face
of all Americans. A mosque which is an exclusive place of prayer for
Muslims would in any way build tolerance and respect?” (Raza: 9 August
2010)
Questioning the intent of building a Mosque, which is an exclusive house of
prayer for Muslims, a mere two blocks from Ground Zero is a valid concern and
seems to be grounds for an unbias debate. Instead of this debate happening, the
attacks against the people who are encouraging this debate, continues to rise.
Anyone who looks to enter into a debate about the issues revolving around
the plans to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is an “Islamaphobe”
(Krauthammer: 27 August 2010). Although there are grounds for a debate, like
any issue facing a nation, the opportunity for debate was sabotaged and destroyed.
While some claim that opposing the mosque makes you an “Islamaphobe” or antiAmerican (Catan: 22 August 2010), and others equate all Muslims as being
terrorists, having an opinion is what true democracy is all about. Having the
freedom to speech and voice one’s opinion for or against an issue, is part of true
Americanism. Again, what is being lost in the negative campaign against
citizens, is freedom, dialogue, and ultimately democracy.
6.4
Conclusion
With negative campaigns becoming more personal than ever in the United
States, freedom of speech and democracy is more at risk to be destroyed than
ever. Negative campaigns have become personal smear campaigns against
ordinary, everyday citizens, and this is becoming the norm. The Tea Party
movement has faced rabid attacks and unfair criticisms from it’s opponents, but
continues to rise above them to promote freedom and dialogue. The most recent
series of negative attacks have strived to annihilate any person who simply voices
an opinion against the location of the Ground Zero Mosque, claiming that they are
“Islamaphobic”. But, these citizens, like the Tea Partiers, continue to voice their
genuine concern and look to instigate dialogue on the true issues facing America
today. These most recent attacks are testament that negative campaigns can work,
they do not promote democracy; although, they can make the citizens stronger
and promote dialogue at the grassroots level. It is apparent with this evidence,
that negative campaigns can definitely promote dialogue at the grassroots level,
but still negatively affects democracy.
Chapter 7 – Conclusion and Recommendations
7.1
Introduction
This paper set out to analyze negative campaigning and the effects of these
negative attacks, particularly against individuals and groups, rather than
politicians. While negative attack ads have historically helped win campaigns, it
may help win campaigns, but does it promote true democracy? What then is to be
said about the people who are genuinely using the voice to speak out against
specific issues, in hopes that the Government will listen to them? Although
negative campaigns have been proven to win campaigns and have been proven
that they work, they do not promote democracy, understanding, or
communication.
7.2
Conclusions
Negative campaigns are effective. In most cases, they do work. A
professor of politics at Northwood University (U.S.) stated, “It takes us away
from the actual issues, what the candidates stand for. The sad truth of the matter
is, they work.” (Gilbert: 10 August 2010) While negative campaigns do work,
they does not promote democracy. Instead of promoting democracy by informing
the voter on the issues facing their choice, negative campaigns lead to a certain
public opinion, which is uneducated on the crucial aspects of their vote. The
public opinion is being hijacked, as politicians and the media have found
opportunity in these negative attacks. Negative campaigns work to persuade the
public into believing things that are completely untrue or partial truths which are
altered to create a negative attack against the other person or group. These attacks
greatly profit the media, as they thrive on drama and benefit greatly from any
attack, which can cause scandal or entertainment, which they can publicize. The
outcomes of negative campaigns can be great, as they have been featured in every
winning campaign over the last century (Westen: 331). These negative attacks
have a history to prove that they are successful in winning campaigns, but these
campaigns do not promote democracy, as they do not promote dialogue or
understanding. The negative campaigns against citizens are debilitating and
hindering the freedoms that true democracy promotes.
American politics is the heart of negative campaigning within politics, but
the negative campaigns are going on all throughout the world, including Ireland.
In 1981, Margaret Thatcher spoke out against the hunger strikers and referred to
them as criminals and terrorists (Thatcher: 6 May 1981). All that the hunger
strikers were looking for is recognition, a dialogue or debate, and ultimately be
recognized as “political prisoners”; instead of Thatcher opening a dialogue or
debate as to how to include the thoughts of the imprisoned Irish citizens, she
turned away and lambasted them. This could be said with regards to the more
recent Fine Gael campaign against the organization, Coir. The members of Coir
were Irish citizens who created a negative campaign attacking the actual issues
facing the electorate that would be either voting for or against the Lisbon Treaty.
Politicians didn’t attack the issues, but rather assailed a negative campaign against
the members of Coir. In each of these situations, there were citizens who were
speaking out in hopes of promoting dialogue, but were met instead with negative
personal attacks.
In the 2008 United States Presidential election campaign, personal
negative attacks were widespread against each of the Presidential and VicePresidential candidates. Instead of the attacks being centered on the real issues,
the attacks were personal smear campaigns promoted by the public, by the
opponents, and above all, the media. Sarah Palin made the claim that Barack
Obama was friends with terrorists, because of his relationship with known
terrorist Bill Ayers (Phillips: 4 October 2008). A magazine called The Atlantic,
through the personal political views of their photographer Jill Greenberg,
promoted a campaign against John McCain, publicizing his alleged affair from
years ago and then made the claim that he was a “war monger” (Goldberg:
October 2008). Then, there were the constant attacks against Sarah Palin, making
a series of claims that had nothing to do with her policies, but rather had
everything to do with her personal life. The case for Sarah Palin being attacked to
a greater degree than any other candidate became especially apparent, when
evidence surfaced, exposing the fact that the media were working together to plan
attacks against the Vice-Presidential candidate and her family (Strong: 22 July
2010).
Since the 2008 election, the negative personal attacks have continued to
spread throughout the public sector. Although there have been a few personal
attacks waged against Barack Obama since he was inaugurated President of the
United States, the most prominent development in the realm of negative
campaigns, is the negative attacks against American citizens who are simply
looking for their voice to be heard about the issues that the Country is facing. The
Department of Homeland Security released a Federal document referring to
“rightwing extremists” and without naming the Tea Party movement, literally
claiming that they are terrorists (United States: 7 April 2009). The Tea Party
movement is a group founded on the ideals of the U.S. Constitution; and they
have no history of terrorism within their group, nor any proof of any future
terrorist activity. The most recent attack against American citizens, in the form of
a negative campaign, is the smear campaign against anyone who is questioning
whether or not a Mosque should be built two blocks from Ground Zero, the site of
the September 11th terrorist attack. The people who are trying to encourage
dialogue about it are being called “Islamaphobic” (Catan: 22 August 2010) or
“bigots” (Krauthammer: 27 August 2010). This attack is congruent with the other
campaigns that have been discussed in this paper.
All of these attacks battle against human honor and honesty: they fight
against freedom, rather than promoting it. Free speech is not being promoted,
thus the opportunity for dialogue and democracy are being destroyed. Negative
campaigns have a proven record of success, but these attacks do not promote
dialogue within politics or the public. Negative attacks have a history to prove
that they are successful in winning campaigns, but these negative attacks do not
encourage understanding and dialogue, rather they segregate society and breed
hatred. The negative campaigns against citizens subdues the freedoms that true
democracy promotes, thus these attacks need to stop and the public must focus on
the debate about the real issues.
7.3
Recommendations
While many argue that negative campaigning works and it has a proven
track record of success, this does not justify untruthful attacks or the attacks
against another person. Political communications is quickly becoming a figment
of history, rather than being practiced present day. When negative campaigns are
used, it should be centered around the issues and directly attack specific issues
facing the voter, rather than attack an individual or group. People refuse to
discuss “the issues” facing a nation, but they have no problem blaming others for
the problems. Treat the cause instead of the effect. People jump to rash judgment
about others and refuse to believe that they themselves could ever be wrong.
The media also plays a major role in promoting which side of the
campaign they will endorse and thus how each campaign, person, or group is
presented to the public. The media controls the messages that are being
promoted, thus the public must be cautious of the messages that are attainable
through the media. As politicians know the power of the media, they must be
careful not to compromise democracy, in order to win a vote. Politicians role is to
promote democracy and serve their Constituents to the best of their ability. If
these politicians fall into the media’s trap of negative campaign attacks, people
will begin lose faith in them. This could be evidenced in the upcoming Midterm
elections in America. Obama attacked the Tea Partiers through the document that
his Administration released, which attacked “rightwing extremists” for simply
speaking out in public on the issues that matter to them (United States: 7 April
2009).
The recommendations based upon all of the information discussed
throughout this paper, revolve around the return to true political communications.
A true democracy allows for differing opinions, but a certain respect that allows
opposite sides to connect and dialogue. This can only happen if society is led by
example. Politicians need to start focusing on the real issues facing modern day
citizens and put an end to negative personal attacks. If the negative attacks in the
political sectors, it would give the public a lead on promoting dialogue and
democracy.
7.4
Future Research and Implications for Professional Practice
Future research into the topics discussed throughout this paper would not
only benefit the political sector, but also the general public. Exploring each of the
subtopics discussed would be an opportunity to spark interest and debate, as each
of these particular topics or events have some amount of controversy attached to
them. It is in communicating that one gains knowledge, thus it is important to
engage in dialogue, in order to gain knowledge and understanding. If one is
strong in their thoughts and belief’s, then they will be accepting of the opposite
viewpoints. But, if one is unconfident, then this is when the negative attacks set
in. The public, politicians, and all of humanity, need to know why they believe
what they believe and stand up for those beliefs, and they should be allowed to
without expecting a negative campaign attack.