I have no doubt that attacks against political opponents, be they individuals or groups, can be highly effective. I’ve been wondering if there comes a point where such attacks are not only a waste of time but end up benefitting those you’re protesting against.
I was never a big fan of President Clinton but I never hated him with the rabid ferocity that many others did. Throughout his administration I heard all about White Water, Monicagate, Travelgate, and of course how he was going to turn over control of the United States to the United Nations as well as other more outrageous claims. It got to the point where I couldn’t filter out what was serious, what was made up, and what was true so I just ended up tuning them all out. By 1999 Clinton could have been found in bed with a live boy and a dead girl and I wouldn’t have cared. Unfortunately, that meant that anyone who had a legitimate beef with Clinton’s policies I might have tuned them out as well.
The same thing happened prior to the 2000 election with Bush. There were so many hysterical attacks against Bush that it blended in with legitimate problems with his platform. There were only so many times I could hear that Bush was going to outlaw abortion, that he murdered hundreds in Texas, and his military record was suspect before I just started to tune them out as I did with Clinton.
At what point do political attacks only serve to help your opponents? No need to limit this to political figures we can put political, religious, or whatever other ideals you can think of on the table.
i believe that these political attacks, from both sides have hijacked our political process.
the most recent campaign ended up focusing on mr. kerry’s service in vietnam vs. mr. bush’s national guard record. i really became tired of the swift boat vets arguing with the move on crowd. personal attacks have become the political speech of our age and we all suffer for it.
i am sure that the next three years will see a gradual increase in the attacks on ms. clinton to forstall her running for the democratic nomination. if, at this point, there was a clear republican front runner there would ba a negative campaign underway to derail that candidate.
there were many issues facing our country in the last election that did not get covered or discussed nearly as much as statements like:
“osama ben laden wants kerry to win”
“where are the personnel files of bush’s texas nationial guard unit?”
Well, if you’re going to go by RESULTS then political attacks typically work like a charm, and it doesn’t matter a whit if there’s any truth to them at all if you have a big enough spin machine to really work them, frex, the Swift Boat Veterans for Lying Their Asses Off.
If history’s any guide, you have to go pretty damn far to get to the point where someone saying “have you at long last no shame?” sends you scurrying for the hills.
The Swift Boat thing was unquestionably effective, and I don’t think there was really ANY blacklash against it except among people who were voting for Kerry anyway. I know perfectly smart, rational people who were almost subconsciously duped into thinking Kerry was a war criminal and Bush was a Medal of Honor winner. It was a phenomenal thing, a PR campaign of unprecedented effectiveness.
I’m not sure negative ads EVER go on too long. I think they can fail right out of the gate sometimes if you attack the wrong thing, but if the note plays okay, everyone seems to keep dancing.