Argument: Identifying strong, honest candidates.

As noted above, the rougher, ruder, character-oriented tone of a negative campaigning environment acts as a useful test of a politician’s reputation and integrity. Further, opposition wish to restate their early counter-argument on the evolving and dynamic nature of election campaigns. No campaign is uniformly negative of positive.

A candidate who is able to stand firm in the face of attacks against his character and his policies is much more likely to be able to act as a strong advocate in a legislative forum, or when accounting for the actions of the executive. Determination and strong argumentation skills in one area imply a similar degree of dedication in other areas. By contrast, how much confidence should we have in a politician who would be prepared to appeal to the enforcement mechanism created by the proposition to forcibly exclude a particular statement or allegation from a political debate, rather than respond to it? The problems that confront national governments cannot be dismissed simply by invoking a law designed to eliminate fuzzily defined forms of unfair conduct.

Attack adverts are used much more frequently in US-style primary selection contests, which poll members of a particular political party in order determine the candidate who will represent it in national or lower-level elections [i] . The use of negative campaigning in the context of party or semi-open primaries may help to distinguish between politicians running on very similar ideological platforms.

If an aspiring president’s ideological allies can be dissuaded from voting for him, based on his past actions or associations, it will be extremely easy to convince undecided voters to do the same.

By identifying politicians who are difficult to assail on an ad hominem basis, and by identifying politicians who can remain composed and professional when subjected to such attacks, political parties are able to field significantly stronger candidates in open elections. Voters then carry out similar assessments of character and integrity in the polling booth.

[i] “Clinton Questions Role of Obama in a Crisis”. The New York Times, 01 March 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/politics/01campaign.html?_r=1

Candidate 1: "It is difficult to envision how this ban could be effectively implemented without compromising the principles of free speech and unfettered political discussion that lie at the core of western democratic liberalism. If side proposition pursue a broadly construed ban on negative tactics by candidates, campaign groups and the media, free and open debate is likely to be endangered.

Democratic political parties are diverse and plural entities. Even the most authoritarian or charismatic candidate cannot hope to have complete control and oversight over every member of his campaign team. Under the widest interpretation of the resolution, a careless comment by an over-enthusiastic party activist could breach a negative campaigning ban as surely as an ad hominem attack advert. Indeed, such comments are much more likely to be made on the door step than they are in the press.

This being the case, how would the activities of a candidate’s staff be policed? Would they be subject to constant surveillance? If so, by whom? How would the impartiality of regulators be guaranteed? Moreover, if a supervising body were given the wide ranging powers necessary to implement the resolution, how would the proposition prevent the leaking- accidental or otherwise- of confidential government and opposition information? The functions of the state are closely bound up with the activities of party politics, especially in federal nations such as America, which operate partisan civil administrations.

Similarly, who should decide when an independent campaigning group is “too closely aligned” to the ideals and objectives of a particular political party? Within the American republican party there are a wide range of views on issues considered controversial by political conservatives. Former Republican VP Dick Cheney voiced support for same-sex marriage while in office. By contrast, 2012 republican presidential nomination candidates Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman have stated their opposition to reforms that would make same-sex marriage more accessible in the US. Does criticism levelled against Cheney by Christian “family” interest groups allow them to be defined as independent of the Republican party? Comparably, is praise for Cheney’s position by LGBTQ interest groups a reliable indicator that they support other republican policies? Clearly it does not.

It should also be noted that a ban would be almost impossible to enforce on the internet. The multi-jurisdictional nature of much web content (videos or articles authored in one country may be hosted by services operating under the law of another) renders any attempt to control on-line political commentary meaningless. Short of adopting wide-scale, Chinese-style internet censorship systems, the growth of online attack campaigning [i] renders the proposition meaningless.

Side proposition assume that the news media operate without directing any critical attention to the subject matter of their stories. They portray the press as vulnerable to subversion by campaign managers able to leak or cleverly position attack stories. Even if side proposition can provide examples of this type of misdirection, it would be damaging to tackle flawed editorial policies by using the law to limit journalists’ right to comment and speak freely on political events.

Where there has been a failure of safeguards that ensure that objective coverage of significant events remains objective, regulatory bodies should review the standards of journalists work – as they currently do under the status quo. This would provide the press with the flexibility to continue reporting on important issues, while refining the way in which they do so.

Even if the legal mandate is enforced by an impartial, neutral observer, appointments to this body are likely to become politically fraught, precisely because it would be the ultimate arbiter of the limits and rules that would be applied to an election.

[i] “Dose of Venom for Candidates Turns Ads Viral”. New York Times, 20 March 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/politics/21ads.html"
Candidate 2: "Politics is a tough game, and those that decide to play it should expect to come away bruised. Politicians, almost by definition, seek publicity and the attention of the media. They should, therefore, be prepared to accept that positive press coverage will inevitably turn negative.

Much as debaters are trained to continue delivering clear and structured speeches in the face of badgering POIs, indifferent judges and poorly behaved opponents, we should expect our politicians to be tough enough to give a robust defence of their policies and actions, no matter how pernicious the attacks launched against them. This is the only way in which we can be certain of their skills as a political operator and their commitment to the ideological cause they claim to support.

Politicians with families are consistently perceived as more trustworthy and competent than those who lack familial ties. A family is a useful general indicator of a politician’s willingness to set aside personal ambition and self-interest, and invest himself wholly in ensuring the well-being of others. Likewise, a politician who welcomes attacks on his character and policies and fights vigorously to defend them is also more likely to have a clean past.

Moreover, due to the organic and emergent nature of interactions that occur between states on the international stage, politicians will not have access to the types of legal protection proposed by the resolution when doing business with the representatives of other nations. Coddled politicians will lack the pragmatism and guile necessary to effectively represent western nations’ interests in the international community."
Candidate 3: "It is almost impossible to guarantee that groups are truly independent, in the sense in which side opposition uses the word. In America, so called “527” organisations [i] , which profess no direct affiliation with a candidate, are permitted to launch campaigns to attack or support particular politicians, without being subjected to the same funding limitations and fair conduct rules as political parties. [ii]

Right-to-life groups and religiously motivated organisations may operate as 527s, along with groups controlled by business organisations. Coordination between 527 groups, candidates and political parties is banned in the US. In practice, however, the close alignment of the groups’ ideological objectives and the characteristic policies of Republican and Democrat candidates leads to 527s taking their cues (and their targets) from the pronouncements of politicians and their campaigns.

Groups such as Citizen’s Solidarity and the Indian anti-corruption movement mobilised around Anna Hazare [iii] are comparatively rare. Where flaws in a nation’s democratic institutions are pervasive, affecting coalitions, government and opposition parties, the role of the press as a neutral observer is usually more effective than political attacks in bringing problems to light – consider the role of the Daily Telegraph in disclosing British MP’s misuse of their publicly funded expense allowances [iv] .

[i] “FEC collects $630000 in civil penalties from three 527 organisations”. Federal Election Commission, 13 December 2006. http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20061213murs.html

[ii] Section 527, United Stated Internal Revenue Code.

[iii] “No modern-day Mahatma”. The Economist, 27 April 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/21526895

[iv] MPs’ Expenses. The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/"
Candidate 4: "It is perfectly easy to rule on what is positive and negative. It is true that some positive broadcasts might be meant to play up the strengths of one candidate, precisely because that’s where his opponent is weakest – but that approach still represents an improvement on the current situation, where the majority of campaign media focuses on the flaw of a candidate’s rivals.

Subjectivity has no role to play in the verification of objective facts. Currently, many campaign adverts are based around misrepresenting the content of an opposition candidate’s policies, or making far-fetched connections between negative social or economic trends and bills that a particular candidate voted in favour of.

Questioning the objective distance of the body that would enforce the rules created by the resolution is also ineffective. Judges are appointed based on their ability to analyse and sift complicated arguments based on disputed or compromised sets of facts. There is no reason to assume that similar principles of neutrality and respect for the separation of powers within a democratic state would not also apply to reformed election laws"
Candidate 5: "It is fashionable to exaggerate the pervasiveness of the “negative campaign environment”, but democracy still functions perfectly well in almost all liberal states. People still vote when their vote will matter the most. Voter turnout in the 2008 [i] American presidential election and in the 2010 UK general election [ii] was significantly higher than in previous years. Both of these elections took place against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving financial crisis. Both elections focussed on candidates promoting a wide range of new and radical ideas. Both elections produced a preponderance of attack adverts that focussed on the content of policies, ideologies and the reliability of evidence showing the candidates’ previous policy success. With one or two over-reported exceptions, the politics of the personal was largely absent in both the US and the UK.

Moreover, liberal-democratic ideals promote openness and transparency within both the government and the political class. Voters are entitled to information on a candidate’s “down-side”; the opponents of a candidate are obviously well placed to voice such concerns. Journalists risk accusations of bias if they attempt to publish details of an individual politician’s failings in office. However, when these issues are raised by an opponent of that politician, the press is placed in a position that allows it to act as a disinterested assessor of that claim. Far from simply reproducing negative messages, as side proposition claim that they do, the mass media frequently conduct detailed investigations into the content of attack adverts. “Ad watch” reports of this type are now a common feature of US election coverage [iii] . The interrelationship of politicians and the press enhances the transparency of the campaigning process.

Proposition have unrealistic expectations when it comes to assessing the efficacy of campaign adverts. It is true that an attack advert will not be able to convert a supporter of its target into a supporter of the attacking politician. However, this is equally true of positive campaign adverts. The transfer of political loyalties will always be a long, drawn out process that on-spec campaigning cannot hope to influence [iv] .

The resolution would compromise the efficiency of political campaigning by obliging candidates to over emphasise the role of ideology and policy in campaign literature, rather than their qualities as a decision maker.

Moreover, the resolution would encourage politicians to “over-promise” in manifestos and campaign literature. If the only means by which contenders in an election can distinguish themselves is by pledging to initiate more new policies, taxes, tax cuts, projects or consultations than their opponents, the workloads of successful candidates will become artificially inflated and unmanageable.

In short, politicians running for office will be incentivised to create ever more outlandish manifesto pledges and policy initiatives. Due to term-limits, organisational inefficiencies and unpredictable, emergent problems, very few of these promises will be realised. The consequence of this situation is obvious. When politicians fail to keep their promises, citizens will lose confidence in the effectiveness of the state.

There is greater utility in encouraging politicians to be cautious and conservative when campaigning. If an election is dominated by fantastical and elaborate schemes that are left unfulfilled, the likely result will be chronic apathy and disengagement among the electorate – precisely the outcome that proposition wish to avoid.

[i] Voter turnout in presidential elections: 1828-2008, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php

[ii] The Electoral Commission, http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/elections/turnout-general-elections

[iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University. http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/1996/goingneg.html

[iv] Effectiveness of negative political advertising. Won Ho Chang and others. 1998. Ohio University, Scripps School of Journalism. http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/vol02/2-1a-B.htm"
Candidate 6: "It is not possible for a politician to win on a no-policy platform. As proposition points out, negative campaigning does little to convince its target’s supporters of the wisdom of the attacker’s policies. A politician who decides to use attack adverts in his campaign will not be able to transfer support from his opponents’ tickets to his. Thus, a politician who wants to employ negative campaigning tactics must already be confident that he has an existing support base and policies that other voters will be attracted to.

Policy making and analysis remains the meat and drink of politics. The politics of the personal is reserved for campaigning season. Moreover, negative campaigning tactics are reserved for closely fought constituencies, states or districts. Side proposition does not give politicians credit for recognising that voters are rational individuals motivated by reasoned arguments.

Where negative campaigning is used in public polls, it is usually deployed at the end of a protracted a very closely fought campaign. The number of negative adverts broadcast by a politician is usually tied to the closeness of a campaign itself.

Moreover, negative campaigning can assist candidates who may be seeking to implement new policies, but lack the necessary name recognition and financial backing to succeed against a more experienced competitor. Negative campaigning, even if it is unable to instantly generate loyalty, may at least help to compel voters to seek out alternative perspectives on the issues over which an election is fought. Indeed, recommendations by the political consultancy business Complete Campaigns indicate that similar strategies have been successfully employed by their previous clients [i] .

[i] Negative Campaigning. Complete Campaigns. http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=8"
Candidate 7: "Use of negative campaigning in primaries may help to build support among voters who already identify with a particular party, but it can also lower a politician in the view of undecided or swing voters.

Primaries, now more than ever, are public contests, given as much attention by the media as elections themselves.

Mudslinging tactics deployed by candidates during a primary are likely to give ammunition to opponents in any ensuing election. The fact that all participants in an election are likely to have engaged in negative campaigning at one time or another is beside the point – the activity is harmful in and of itself, because of its ability to engender apathy.

Negative campaigning in political primaries fuels further negative campaigning during general elections. Even if, as opposition suggest, an aggressive primary campaign is useful for winnowing out weak and compromised candidates, negative campaigning in the election that follows will prevent those “strong” candidates from disseminating useful, political positive information.

As noted in proposition’s second substantive argument, the strongest candidate many not always be the individual best able to respond to slanderous and fear-mongering attack adverts. Intelligence, compassion, charisma and technical expertise do not always go hand in hand with a thick skin and the ability to dig dirt."

Use of negative campaigning in primaries may help to build support among voters who already identify with a particular party, but it can also lower a politician in the view of undecided or swing voters.

Primaries, now more than ever, are public contests, given as much attention by the media as elections themselves.

Mudslinging tactics deployed by candidates during a primary are likely to give ammunition to opponents in any ensuing election. The fact that all participants in an election are likely to have engaged in negative campaigning at one time or another is beside the point – the activity is harmful in and of itself, because of its ability to engender apathy.

Negative campaigning in political primaries fuels further negative campaigning during general elections. Even if, as opposition suggest, an aggressive primary campaign is useful for winnowing out weak and compromised candidates, negative campaigning in the election that follows will prevent those “strong” candidates from disseminating useful, political positive information.

As noted in proposition’s second substantive argument, the strongest candidate many not always be the individual best able to respond to slanderous and fear-mongering attack adverts. Intelligence, compassion, charisma and technical expertise do not always go hand in hand with a thick skin and the ability to dig dirt.
