The problem though, is that when people go to the ballot box, they have to vote for a politician whether they trust any of them or not, whether they think their ads do harm or not, and whether they are working together or attacking one another. These ads may drive many away from the ballot box, but that doesn't change the calculus for getting elected unless everyone who stays away are the supporters of one party. The truth is that attack ads work. An uncommitted voter (someone who doesn't consistently commit to a party) whose knowledge of Ignatieff is only what the Conservatives have told them - which can be many since 80 percent of Canadians don't follow politics on a regular basis, but probably close to 100 percent watch TV, and as many as 70 percent of Canadians are uncommitted voters - is likely to favour the Conservatives due to the mistrust engendered toward Ignatieff.
Political strategists and psychologists know this, as made clear in books like Warren Kinsella's The War Room and Drew Westen's The Political Brain. The 'Not A Leader' ads about Stephane Dion proved it just ten months ago. Of course, the ads have to be well-done and effective, which means finding the right message at the right time. The Liberals learned this when the 'Secret Agenda' ads against Harper worked in 2004 and failed miserably in 2006. Included in the right messaging is not crossing a line into personal attacks or misrepresentations, such as the Ontario Liberals learned in their attacks on Cherie DiNovo in a 2006 by-election.
Tom Flanagan, a political strategist, essentially encouraged negative ads in a recent column. Bruce Anderson objected, citing Obama's campaign as an example of how positive campaigning is the way to go and raising other examples of how negativity can hurt politicians (such as Harper's attack on Ignatieff at the G8 meeting last week). It's true that only negative messaging will not be effective, you have to offer a positive vision of your own to contrast the negative (something Harper routinely fails at which helps to explain why all his attack ads fail to get him to the golden prize of a majority). Westen says a candidate has to tell a story, complete with a good guy (him or herself) and a bad guy (the opponent). Obama did this very well, constantly contrasting his 'yes we can' message of hope with constant criticism of the failed policies of the Republicans and McCain's links to those policies - to say Obama only went positive is to ignore half the content of all his speeches.
The only way to get rid of attack ads is to punish parties for them, and that's not likely to happen since elections are pragmatic and not philosophical - as much as we like to talk about them as if they are. The concluding paragraph of the G&M article is a question: "When it comes to deciding on this type of advertising, shouldn't the cost to Canadians' views of the political process and their civic life be a politician's number one concern?" Well, the answer to this is no, the politician's main concern is getting elected, followed by advancing their agenda, vision, or whatever motives they had for gaining power, which includes the continuance of their getting elected. Until we, as the electorate, punish those who pursue power through negativity, rather than just saying we don't like it, then candidates have no incentive to change tactics.
I'll leave you with this conversation from John Travolta's character, Gov. Jack Stanton, in the movie Primary Colors, who is talking to his advisor, Henry Burton, who has become disillusioned by the nasty tactics Stanton has used.
Stanton: This is hardball. Do you mean you just realized that and can't handle it? I know you better than that. This is it, Henry. This is the price you pay to lead. You don't think Lincoln was a whore before he was president? He had to tell his stories and smile his back-country grin. He did that so one day he'd have the opportunity to stand before the nation and appeal to our better nature. That's where the bullshit stops. That's what it's all about. Making the most of it, doing it the right way. You know that there are plenty of people in this game who don't think that way. They'll sell their souls, lie to people, divide them, play on their fears, for nothing. Just for the prize.
Henry: I don't care. I'm sorry, but I'm not comparing the players. I don't like the game. I want to work for something small, like voter registration.
Stanton: And after that, who do they vote for? Who can do this better than me? Is there anyone else who can win this election? Who'd do more for people than I would? Who'd think about the folks I care about? ... We worked so hard together to get here. It's there for us now. We can do incredible things. We can change this whole country. I'm going to win this. And when I do, we' re going to make history.


