Negative Campaigning Campaign Analysis

Negative campaigning has become a ubiquitous aspect of contemporary politics. This campaign approach has dominated political strategies on both a domestic and global scale for hundreds of years. As noticeably seen in the 1800 presidential election, candidates Thomas Jefferson and John Adams swayed the opinions of the public through the use of slander. By deliberately minimizing the credibility of the other opponent, there was an opportunity to increase personal favorability through comparison. Since then, negative campaigning has become vastly more popular but has in return escalated into a topic of contention. There is ongoing debate in politics on whether or not this method questions the legitimacy of the American electoral process. However,

Hypothetically, if a candidate is being contradictory to his or her beliefs, the political opinion of voters could possibly be altered but only if the discrepancy is both acknowledged and presented to the people. It is the responsibility of campaigners to expose all information to the public so voters have the opportunity to “update their perceptions and evaluation of the candidates” (Mattes, 2012, p. 370). In addition, since false accusations of another could represent the accuser as unreliable, the material that the accuser decides to present is most likely credible information. This increases voter participation in elections because it creates a sense of trust between candidates and the public. With no repercussions for mistakes and no one to challenge assertions, there is a high probability “campaigns would quickly turn into a procession of lies, exaggerations, and unrealistic promises” (Mayer, 1996, p. 442). As a result of negative campaigning, candidates anticipate their opponents to broadcast and attack discrepancies. Therefore, candidates are more compelled to maintain their word in order to avert public condemnation and to gain the trust of the

When candidates are falling victim to false allegations and systematic scrutiny, the perception of electoral politics is becoming increasingly more misconstrued. Negative campaigning shows winning an election is worth compromising the self dignity of another, which significantly influences public opinion of the morality within politics. By politicians being more concerned with discrediting their opponent rather than promoting decency, “citizens’ senses of political efficacy, trust in the government, and overall political mood” (Lau, Sigelman, & Rovner, 2007, p. 1178) is suppressed. As a result campaigner’s counterproductive behavior, citizens are less likely to participate in elections. In addition, the future generation is negatively influenced on how to behave and treat competitors. The divisiveness within political elections is consequentially creating a divide of the nation as a whole. If there is no morality found in campaigns, no trust in future leaders, and no desire of the public to contribute to election outcomes, there will be no progression within a