www.roanoke.com

John Long

Recent columns

• Assault on religious liberty
• Some people need firing
• You missed the boat; too bad
• Christmas during war

From the RoundTable blog

The interminable election season is finally over, much to the relief of those of us who cringe at the words "and I approve this message!" Frequent readers of this column will not be surprised that I was content with the results.

Virginia's election has been picked to death in the local and national media. Does it presage a Republican resurgence in 2010? Was it a referendum on the Obama administration? For some voters, I imagine it was; but in my opinion, it wasn't an election about the president in any absolute sense. I think it's more accurate to say state Democrats ran a lackluster campaign in an environment in which a lot of people have grown suspicious of some policies of the national party. It was, in the end, a Republican year.

So rather than rehash the election returns all over again, I thought I'd give some attention to a related matter that always has the blogosphere atwitter (pun intended): the phenomenon of negative campaigning. Who goes negative first, and for how long? Is such-and-such an ad too negative, or does it raise a legitimate concern for voters? Did the victor win only because he or she went aggressively negative in the last few weeks, and is the victory thus tainted? These questions keep pundits occupied (and employed) in any major election.

Here's how a typical campaign commercial works these days: Cue ominous music, show darkened photo of opponent, preferably with 5 o'clock shadow and open-mouthed grimace. "Joe Stumpspeecher's negative campaign has gone too far ... his attacks on saintly Fred Fleshpresser have been called reckless, irresponsible, the very breath of Satan ... ." Music transitions into upbeat rhythm and a major key, image brightens to show Fred confidently addressing adoring voters of all ages, sexes, classes and ages, then wearing a hard hat and pointing to blueprints he couldn't read if his life depended on it, then walking on the beach holding hands with his wife and children. "But real Virginians know that Fred didn't really stomp that little chipmunk at the shadplanking ... ." Now really, is this a way to choose our leaders?

Well, apparently so. I dislike these ads but don't lose much sleep over them. For one thing, the outrage seems to be usually pretty selective. To some critics, negative campaigning is pretty much when a conservative candidate says anything. For another, such ads are usually aimed at the undecided voter, and I am never him. I've pretty much always known long before Election Day for whom I'd vote: the most conservative candidate with a legitimate chance of winning. What he says about his opponent, or what the opponent says about him, isn't likely to sway me.

Also, these negative ads sometimes raise legitimate issues. Democrat Creigh Deeds (when he remembered he was a candidate at all) put way too many eggs in the basket of opponent Bob McDonnell's master's thesis, a 20-year-old document espousing conservative social policies. In the end, it obviously didn't matter much to the Virginia electorate. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a legitimate concern to some voters, and understandably Deeds hoped to energize them. A negative ad can, after all, serve to fire up your base and get them to the polls, and I'm sure at least a few voters thought of that thesis as they pulled the Deeds lever.

McDonnell also negatively hit Deeds in some sensitive areas, especially his penchant for government spending and his implied desire to raise taxes. You might quibble over how McDonnell presented such issues, but that's not to say that Deeds' fiscal record and the implications of his economic plans weren't legitimate issues for voters to consider.

For all the gnashing of teeth over negativity, voters deserved to consider McDonnell's social beliefs and Deeds' fiscal policies. I'd prefer a more reasonable format: intelligent discussions supplanting hyperemotional TV ads. Think of the money we'd save! But elections don't work that way anymore, if they ever did.

In the end, the best argument for negative ads is a utilitarian one: They work. That's also the worst thing about them. Voters and campaign donors respond to them. Tell 'em why to support you, and they yawn. Tell them why to vote against your opponent, and they perk up. If negative ads didn't work, slick modern campaigns wouldn't employ them.

The problem of negative campaigning lies not with the candidates, but with we the voters. We get the campaigns we deserve.

Long, director of the Salem Museum and a history teacher at Roanoke College, is a Roanoke Times columnist.