Negative campaigning

Confounding the doubters, including the World Next Week, Republican former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Democratic Senator Barack Obama have surged in polls conducted in early presidential primary states.  But their chances of knocking off the establishment favourites will be put to the test next week.  For, after a brief Christmas truce, their opponents will take the gloves off and ‘go negative’.

Negative campaigning has a storied history in the United States, and while the public professes to dislike such tactics, campaign attacks will feature heavily in 2008 for one good reason: they work.  Of course, there are instances when a candidate has been able to shrug off nasty personal attacks.  For example, Thomas Jefferson in 1802 survived pamphleteer James Callender's contention that the president was having a liaison with one of his slaves (an allegation that recent DNA evidence suggests may be true).  But for every Jefferson there are at least two presidential candidates like Michael Dukakis, a man whose faltering 1988 campaign was destroyed by a lethal television ad linking him to a controversial prison furlough programme.

The long knives

There are different vectors for 'negative campaigning', which can take several forms: direct attacks by the opposing candidate or his campaign, indirect attacks via proxy, or sotto voce/clandestine insinuations.

Direct attacks from the candidate or authorised releases by the campaign are widely accepted political tools.  Although most candidates express a desire to fight elections exclusively 'on the issues', almost all resort at some point to personal criticism of their opponents.  For example, Obama and former Senator John Edwards regularly accuse the Democratic party frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton, of engaging in 'triangulation' -- abandoning the party's 'values' for short-term electoral gain.

Attacks via proxy also come in several varieties.  Ostensibly independent voices can express legitimate concerns about an opposing candidate.  Third parties can also be used as a means of 'testing' a potentially controversial attack or framing a legitimate issue in a controversial way.  (The elder George Bush 'adopted' the furlough issue against Dukakis after it had been launched by another group.)  Finally, third parties can be used to create bogus factual controversies about the opposing candidate.

The most 'dirty' mudslinging is usually clandestine or semi-clandestine.  It can be conducted via a 'whispering campaign', in which demonstrably false or slanderous information is secretly circulated.  This can be facilitated by 'push polling', whereby paid operatives call voters posing as pollsters, and then ask questions implying that the targeted candidate supports certain unpopular positions or is hiding scandalous secrets.  The most infamous, and effective, recent example of this nasty practice occurred during the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary, which destroyed Senator John McCain's strong presidential bid.

Double-edged sword

Negative campaign attacks carry significant risks.  If they are overtly launched by, or connected to the instigating politician, they can significantly damage his (or her) image.  If the target responds in a three-way race, this can benefit the non-combatant candidate -- a tactical situation known as 'murder-suicide'.  John Kerry was boosted by fierce political exchanges between Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean ahead of the 2004 Iowa caucuses.  Moreover, if incompetently executed, attacks can rebound on their instigator -- a phenomenon that has compounded Clinton's recent troubles with Obama.

However, if skilfully judged, negative campaigning can be extremely effective.  Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney knows that Huckabee does not have the funds to respond to his negative television barrage on the latter's record on immigration, and that the Republican establishment is leery of the Arkansan.  This may leave Huckabee exposed as the January 3 Iowa caucuses approach.