Negative campaign advertising

Jacob Weisberg of Slate magazine has what seems to me a pretty good post on electoral mudslinging. One hears, so often, that "both sides do it," that it's worth seeing a corrective on this topic.

The practice is very old, of course, but attained some modern highpoints with the infamous LBJ ad linking Goldwater to a nuclear explosion, to Dick Nixon's dirty tricks squads (culminating in the Watergate break-in, which was intended to dig up dirt on a whistleblower from the Rand Corp., Daniel Ellsberg), one of Reagan's goons, Lee Atwater, and perhaps the most famous, the Willie Horton ad which sank Dukakis' campaign.

Weisberg's summary of an ad running in Arizona:

In a voice rancid with contempt, the announcer declared:

Over 100 Democratic elected officials are opposing Democrat trial lawyer Ellen Simon. Liberal Ellen Simon served as the president of the ACLU, a radical organization that defends hard-core criminals at the man/boy love association, a national group that preys on our children. One Democratic mayor called Simon's actions "utterly disgusting." He's right. Ellen Simon: radical, liberal and wrong for Arizona.

While hearing this, the viewer sees just key terms superimposed on the Democrat's face: "LIBERAL" … "Served as the President of the ACLU" … "Radical Organization defends hard core criminals Man/Boy Love Association" … "ACLU Defends Child Molester Group" … "Preys on our children" … "utterly disgusting" … "radical, liberal."

Not a single claim in the ad is true.

It can be hard to shut out this name-calling (provided you haven't changed channels first). There's a place for negative advertising: many, many politicians up for election have done things they deserve to be called on, from keeping $90K in their freezer (William Jefferson, D-La) to hitting on congressional pages (Mark Foley, R-Fl). The vast majority are Republicans, because they are the party in power and have long sucked up to the rich--which doesn't mean that Democrats are likely to forego their own opportunities when they come, only you can make a case for dealing with the present occupants of Congress first. There's a place for pointing out factual-based wrongs. But making sh*t up out of thin air--how does that do anything but make responsible politics impossible, and keep less motivated people (i.e., the center) away from voting?