What is negative campaigning and is it worth the risk for politicians?
Negative campaigning is a popular tactic in modern politics. It is risky and controversial, but politicians often use harmful ads and streak campaigns because winning elections is what they need to do to achieve their goals and push their agendas.
The stakes in politics are high and many politicians are willing to consider shady tactics to gain an edge over their opponents.
In this short article, we’ll explore why negative campaigning is so prevalent in politics today and the potential risks and benefits of this strategy.
What is negative campaigning?
Negative campaigning is a political strategy involving attacking or criticizing an opponent rather than focusing on one’s positive attributes. It aims to create doubts about the opponent’s fit for office in voters’ minds.
This type of political activity is often done through negative ads, smear campaigns and other tactics that seek to discredit the opponent and its trustworthiness in voters’ minds.
While negative campaigning can be highly effective, it carries significant risks.
Nevertheless, negative campaigning can effectively mobilize supporters and highlight opponents’ weaknesses. It can also backfire and damage the credibility and reputation of the politician who uses it, but people in politics still use it.
Voters may also be turned off by a candidate who engages in dirty politics. As a result, negative campaigning can escalate attacks between candidates, turning the election into a name-calling contest and distracting from the issues that voters care about.
The pros of negative campaigning
Negative campaigning can be a highly effective tactic for politicians and there are several benefits why they use this approach.
One of the primary benefits of negative campaigning is highlighting the weaknesses of their political opponents. By drawing attention to their opponent’s shortcomings, politicians position themselves as the stronger candidate and hope to win the support of undecided voters.
Negative campaigning can also mobilize supporters who wouldn’t be motivated to vote otherwise. By painting their opponents negatively, politicians want to create a sense of urgency among their current supporters (and new supporters) and encourage them to get out and vote.
Shaping the narrative
Negative campaigning also helps to shape the narrative of an election. By focusing on the opponents’ weaknesses, politicians want to steer the conversation away from specific topics and highlight the issues that are important to them.
The Cons of Negative Campaigning
While negative campaigning can be valuable, many risks come with it.
Backlash from voters
One of the most significant risks of negative campaigning is turning voters against the politician who uses it and lowering general voter turnout. Negative campaigning is a part of dirty politics and voters may be turned off by a candidate who uses negative tactics.
Damage to credibility
Negative campaigning can also damage the credibility and reputation of the politicians who use it. Voters may see those politicians as desperate, which might hurt their chances of winning the election.
Escalation of attacks
Escalation of attacks between candidates is often the result of negative campaigns. The voters then miss the constructive dialogue on improving society in a country and are forced to choose between candidates that don’t discuss important topics.
Why do political campaigns use negative campaigning?
Despite the risks associated with negative campaigning, politicians still use it because sometimes it sways voters and wins elections. If a part of voters develops doubt and uncertainty about an opponent, those voters might question the qualifications and trustworthiness of a candidate.
Some negative campaigning tactics even portray the opponent as threatening their values or way of life, sometimes mobilizing more voters.
Candidates can differentiate themselves from opponents and draw attention to their strengths and accomplishments. For instance, by highlighting their opponent’s weaknesses, candidates can emphasize the topics they want and position themselves as the better choice and win over undecided voters.
Finally, negative campaigning shifts the focus away from a person’s own weaknesses or controversial positions. It is easier to keep the spotlight on the opponent and avoid scrutiny and criticism of one’s record or policy positions.
Although they are risky, shady and dirty, negative tactics have the potential benefits of deciding elections, which makes them a tempting strategy for many politicians.
Negative campaigning tactics
There is no shortage of tactics that political campaigns can use to discredit an opponent. The most common tactics include:
- Highlighting opponents’ weaknesses using negative campaigning to draw attention to their opponent’s weaknesses, such as past mistakes or unpopular policy positions with voters.
- Spreading rumors or making false accusations about opponents in an attempt to damage their reputation.
- Attack ads that typically focus on attacking an opponent’s character, record, or personal life.
- Surrogate attacks that involve supporters or politicians attacking an opponent on behalf of a candidate.
As always, negative campaigning aims to create a negative perception of the opponent in voters’ minds. And at the same time, positioning the attacking candidate as the more potent and better choice.
Successful negative campaigning requires a careful balance between attacking the opponent and maintaining the trust and support of voters.
How can and should political candidates respond to negative campaigning tactics?
Negative campaigning can be a challenging issue for political candidates to navigate.
One approach is to respond directly to the negative attacks with a clear and concise message and address the accusations. This can mitigate the damage caused by negative tactics and show voters that the candidate is transparent and trustworthy.
Another tactic for a candidate being attacked is focusing on positive messaging and highlighting one’s qualifications and achievements. When correctly done, focusing on your program and goals should work better than engaging in a back-and-forth with the opponent.
Finally, the best response will depend on the specific circumstances of the campaign, the candidate’s personal style and messaging strategy. Nevertheless, the candidates should be prepared to respond to negative campaigning and to have a clear plan for addressing these attacks if and when they come.
Examples from recent political races
Several examples of negative campaigning have been in recent political races in the US and Europe. Some famous examples are:
- 2020 US Presidential Election – in the race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, both candidates used negative campaigning against each other. Trump frequently attacked Biden’s mental ability and his son’s business career, while Biden criticized Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and his character.
- 2019 UK General Election – during the UK General Election, the Conservative Party ran attack ads against Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party. The ads portrayed Corbyn as a threat to national security and accused him of supporting terrorists.
- 2016 US Presidential Election – in the election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, both candidates used negative campaigning a lot. Trump called Clinton “Crooked Hillary” and accused her of corruption, while Clinton attacked Trump’s character and treatment of women.
- 2021 German Federal Election – during the election campaign in Germany, the Social Democratic Party ran ads attacking Armin Laschet, leader of the Christian Democratic Union, using images of him laughing during a visit to a flood-affected region.
These are just a few examples of negative campaigning in recent political races. Unfortunately, almost any political campaign these days will use some form of tactic to slander a political opponent.
While we don’t list them here, there are many other instances of candidates using negative tactics to gain an advantage over their opponents in many democratic societies around the globe.
Negative campaigning is a familiar tactic politicians use to discredit their opponents, but it carries significant risks. The political races that use negative tactics often focus on candidates’ personal and private weaknesses instead of the campaign program.
While negative campaigning can effectively mobilize supporters, it can also damage the credibility and reputation of the politician who uses it, primarily when the tactics are used excessively.
Politicians should carefully consider the pros and cons of negative campaigning before using it. While no campaign is immune to dirty tactics, the decision to engage in negative campaigning should be based on the specific circumstances of the election and the potential risks and benefits.