Complaining about attack ads is like hoping for friendly hockey game

Frontiersman editorial board

Summer is barely upon us, and already the attack ads, and complaints about the attack ads -- and complaints about the complaints about the attack ads -- are picking up steam.

We like to think of the attack ad, or "negative campaigning" as a new manifestation in politics, and we like to blame anti-campaigns for everything from voter apathy to the collapse of American sensibilities. Buncombe. The exact effect of negative campaigns on voters is difficult to pinpoint, and it changes from time to time, but candidates haven't been able to resist the temptation to scandalize their opponents since the democratic process began.

In 1796, John Adams supporters accused Thomas Jefferson of being a Francophile who loved wine and cheese. It was asserted that a Jefferson administration would spawn the teaching and practice of "murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest." Adams prevailed in that election, but Jefferson won the next two elections, despite the same attacks. Of course, during the Jefferson administration, the nation was not plunged into violence and debauchery.

Abraham Lincoln was attacked as being ugly and as being a deist. He did not respond with a negative campaign, nor did he give much credence to his opponents' attacks. He gained victory in a hotly-contested race.

The decision to run attack ads is normally made for one of two reasons. The first reason is that the two candidates are fairly close on the major issues, and negative campaigning is an effort to draw either moral or ethical blood to create a gap in the polls. The second primary reason is to draw an opponent away from his or her strong issues in a close race. The latter reason is likely the cause for what Tony Knowles perceives as negative campaigns coming from his opponents in the race for Lisa Murkowski's U.S. Senate seat. Murkowski has spent a lot of money on television and radio ads already, and Mike Miller doesn't have a large campaign fund. Knowles has kept most of his money in his pocket. If he succeeds in saving most of his war chest until the final push toward election day, and if the race remains close, he'll have a decided advantage. It's in Murkowski's interest for Knowles to spend funds now, answering moot questions and defending himself -- even against erroneous charges. Miller really won't factor into the big picture as anything but a distraction for Murkowski.

In the meantime, voters and pundits will complain about politicians shying away from the real issues and stooping to negative tactics -- all the while spreading the malicious gossip around the water cooler. If elections were won by candidates who stayed focused on the issues, that's what they'd do. In truth, negative campaigns may tell us more about the values of the average voter than about the ethical convictions of candidates.