A Michael Smerconish poll question caught my eye recently. In this political season, he asked whether a candidate’s civility toward an opponent would affect their vote. More than 30,000 people responded. Eighty-seven percent said yes.
It was an online poll, not a scientific survey, but the result was overwhelming. People say they want candidates to treat one another decently. I’m having a hard time reconciling that with all the negative political advertising I’m seeing.
My informal survey at the dog park confirms what I suspected. This year’s campaigns for statewide and congressional seats are overwhelmingly negative.
Between innings and during commercial breaks, we are inundated with a barrage of attack ads. The opponent is not merely wrong, but dangerous and determined to destroy our quality of life.
Uplifting? Not exactly.
The formula is always the same. It is as if the same production company is making all the ads: a fuzzy, unflattering, doctored photo, dark shadows, ominous music and a sinister voice. The opponent is not merely wrong. They are evil, devoid of any redeeming human characteristics. Snidely Whiplash versus Cruella de Vil.
My unofficial estimate is that 90 percent of the ads are negative and 10 percent are informational or positive. This fosters what political scientists call negative partisanship, the idea that voters are motivated less by enthusiasm for their own candidate and more by the desire to beat the other one.
Another driver is our campaign finance system. Much of the advertising is purchased by independent groups rather than the candidates themselves. These groups are not allowed to coordinate with the campaigns, so they frequently do the darker work of tearing down opponents while giving the candidates some cover to run positive ads.
Why is the advertising so negative? Because research shows that negative messages are more memorable. It is the same reason one bad restaurant review can wipe out 10 positive ones in a second. However, the research does not show that this approach consistently wins elections.
The approach serves to darken the public mood, as if we needed any help being darker. It reduces our faith in institutions. Whoever wins is already diminished. In the minds of many voters, the election becomes a choice between the lesser of two evils. That is not a great formula for effective governance.
Needless to say, negative advertising also feeds polarization. There is a difference between an opponent and an enemy. An opponent is someone with whom you disagree. An enemy is someone who must be silenced, erased or destroyed. Civility requires respect for your opponent. You can still ask hard questions and criticize an opponent’s record or experience.
I’m not a Pollyanna when it comes to negative advertising. It is not going away anytime soon. But we can demand better behavior from those asking for our votes.
Candidates should be required, or at least firmly expected, to participate in community forums. Preferably, they should participate in more than one. They should stand in the same room, answer the same questions and explain their differences directly to voters, so voters do not have to rely on edited commercials, mailers and social media posts.
At the end of each forum, each candidate should be required to identify something they genuinely respect about the other. It may sound corny, but the answer would tell us something important. Can a candidate recognize the good in someone with whom he or she disagrees? Can the candidates treat one another as neighbors rather than enemies? After the election, can the winner work with the people who supported the other candidate?
Woody Allen said 80 percent of success is showing up. That is true of candidates, too. A campaign is a job interview. If candidates are unwilling to sit beside an opponent and answer questions before Election Day, it is fair to wonder how they will handle disagreement, criticism and uncomfortable questions once in office.
Those are not trivial questions. They are part of the job.
For what it’s worth, that’s part of why our own campaign for Bedford Town Supervisor operates under a public rulebook that rules out personal attacks, mailers and opponent obsession from the outset. It’s one thing to say you believe in civility. It’s another to write it down and be held to it.
If 87 percent of people say civility affects their vote, voters should demand some evidence of it. A good place to start is with candidates willing to show up, face one another and have a civil conversation.
I can dream, can’t I?