The Presidential election of 1828 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams was a vicious one.  The supporters of both candidates disclosed scandalous stories about their opponent in an effort to discredit one another.  Since that brutal election over 170 years ago, negative campaigning has become a key strategy for many politicians nationwide.  Politicians who resort to releasing negative advertisements in an effort to turn the public against their opponents often lack substantive platforms and innovative ideas to alleviate national problems.  Negative campaigning not only damages a politician’s public image, but it is also a disservice to voters as it prevents candidates from focusing on the issues.  An excess of negative campaign ads contributes to an overall decline in the quality of politics and leads to a voter disinterest and lack of participation in elections.

Negative campaigning contradicts the principles of democracy, which seeks to give power to the people through an election based on each candidate’s merit.  When politicians rely too heavily on negative ads to demean their opponents, the focus of their campaign drifts away from winning public approval on the ideas that truly matter.  These politicians often fail to take a decisive stance on major issues and leave voters questioning the value of their plan for the nation’s future.  In recent elections, an excess of negative advertising has detracted from public focus as candidates bombard the public with irrelevant personal scandals of their opponents, rather than conducting intelligent speeches and debates to build their own images.

“Negative campaigns appeal to [voters’] emotions, rather than facts,” said former AP Government teacher Tom Johnson.

Politicians who participate in negative campaigning often use it as an excuse to take a weak position on national issues.  They turn to attacking the views of other candidates in an effort to reduce their approval ratings.  Throughout Mitt Romney’s political career, he has been criticized for his various policy reversals that are inconsistent with conservative politics.  His indecisive attitude is evident in his stance on abortion.  When Romney was running for senator, he supported a woman’s choice; however, he has recently changed his stance and now claims to wholeheartedly oppose abortion.  According to the Examiner, Romney has dedicated a substantial portion of his 2012 presidential campaign to attack ads that have cost as much as $17 million in an effort to shift attention away from his own inconsistencies.   Romney’s campaign is one of many that leaves the country wondering who they will be electing.

Campaigns based entirely on negative ads additionally cause voters to become more ambivalent and indifferent to politics.  For voting citizens, their decision to support a particular candidate can no longer be based on the candidate’s opinions and beliefs.  As a result, there is a decline in the quality of politics and the overall voter turnout.  In the municipal elections of Calabasas, for example, the turnout ranges from 20 to 25 percent.  This is a surprisingly low turnout rate considering the fact that the electorate is composed of many educated, worldly and politically astute individuals.

“Negative campaigning creates a divisive atmosphere that remains in place long after an election has ended,” said Calabasas Mayor James Bazojian.  “Persistent negative campaigning will repel citizens and discourage them from voting or becoming actively involved in civic affairs.”

Negative campaigning has proven to be a pointless strategy that is shockingly expensive and provides no substantial political benefits.  Politicians releasing these ads are working for their own agendas and compromising the ideals of both the public and themselves.  True democracy will only be possible when political leaders represent the people and focus on the issues.