In Defense of "Negative" Ads

I've got to take issue with my good friend, Rob Bluey, who writes about negative politics today at RedState. Rob writes:

"I've made it a personal mission to condemn negative ads, regardless of who runs them."

First, there needs to be a distinction drawn between "good" negative ads and "bad" ones. It's just too easy to say: "It's wrong to say anything bad about anyone..."

For example, was it wrong for "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to point out that John Kerry was a phony?

And if you know something about someone which would disqualify them from serving in a position of leadership, is it not your civic duty to inform the public (and let them be the judge of it)? Was Reagan wrong for "going negative" on Ford and Jimmy Carter? Did voters have the right to know about Michael Dukakis' furlough program?



While many may admire Rob's sentiment, I see it as a disturbing -- but emerging -- trend among conservative bloggers, many of whom do not have a campaign background. It is also very easy to cast oneself as a good guy by merely saying you don't like negative ads. It's easy, and not terribly intellectually challenging.

Decrying "negative" ads is a luxury afforded to those who are blessed to be able to sit in their decorated offices, never having to engage in the "dirty" work of electoral politics.

While the conservative movement is certainly in need of more intellectuals, it is also in need of soldiers -- men and women who do the things that, though they are necessary to preserve Democracy, don't get talked about at cocktail parties (TR noted that politics was like making sausage. He was right).

What many call "negative" politics, I call engaging in the work of Democracy. We have an adversarial system that rests on the principle that beating each other up during a campaign results in a more informed public. As Susan KiLiddo Michels recently told National Journal's Hotline:

"Negative campaigning is... as old as time and human nature. The Romans campaigned negatively; Shakespeare dedicated an entire play to negative campaigning -- Richard III."

There is nothing healthier for Democracy than a vigorous debate. And, as many historians and writers have noted (including Eric Burns, author of Infamous Scribblers), if you look at history, today's politics is comparably tame.

Note: While Rob and I are very good friends, I believe that having this debate is healthy. Of course, this is entirely consistent with my argument in favor of what some call "negative" campaigning, and I call "comparison advertising."