The Penultimate Word: The Perils of Negative Political Strategy

ABC news recently aired an interview with Newt Gingrich's second wife; she reported that he asked her (with whom he cheated on his first wife while she had cancer) to agree to an open marriage with him so he could continue a relationship with his mistress (now third wife).

When asked to comment in the recent presidential debate, Gingrich replied with a scathing critique of the moderator and of media in general, which was greeted with multiple standing ovations from the South Carolina audience (Republicans often criticize the media and it is a popular talking point throughout the party), 65% of which was Evangelical Christian. In the South Carolina primary two days later, Gingrich beat Mitt Romney by an impressive 12% (even more astonishing considering he was trailing Romney in the polls by 10%).  46% of self-reported Evangelical Christians voted for Gingrich in the South Carolina primary.

Why would a crowd, composed mainly of evangelicals, value their love of spite for the media over an extraordinary account of personal infidelity?

Of course, considering personal character in a political candidate is not necessarily the way to choose the most effective and productive political leaders. John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton both had less-than-stellar relationships in their closets, but both remain very popular presidents. But Gingrich's actions (and the pattern of activity in the Republican primary) are not just about the issue of a candidate's personal life; the fact that his negative and argumentative rhetoric does not offer positive facts about his credentials but only attacks anyone who attacks him. This, I think, is a key factor in the increasingly lamented depravity of the advancing election process.

At a speech in Florida on Tuesday, Mitt Romney stood beneath a giant banner that said, in caps, "Obama isn't Working." The philosophy of this strategy is immensely troubling: with it, Romney is defining himself and his political values negatively (the other guy stinks!) instead of positively (I am qualified!).  The poster does, at least subconsciously, lessen my conception of the current administration, but it does nothing for my confidence in Mitt Romney as a leader; it submits lazy criticism without offering any sort of constructive statements. Most public political arguments today are the philosophical equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Negative campaigns are lazy and immoral and (consequently) destructive.  But the reality of the elective process is that negative campaigns work; and people choose candidates based on the public assessment of their overall charisma as much as (probably more than) their political credentials.  A Princeton study gave subjects second-long glimpses at black-and-white photos of politicians running for office; the results of the elections indicated that those subjective first assessments were right 70% of the time. Our subconscious is affecting our decisions, especially in politics, more than we'd probably like to admit. Emotional and familial ties to various political parties and opinions run deeper into our motivations than any objective decision we think we've made.

This is not necessarily a bad thing; if we tried to operate on a solely unemotional basis we'd be paralyzed in most common social situations. People do not act wholly rationally, and that's okay; it's an important aspect of society and humanity. But being emotionally invested in our opinions causes us to identify ourselves via those opinions and others who hold them; it also causes us to violently defend ourselves.  This in turn, sadly and ironically, causes us to lose a part of our humanity.

Affectations of certainty are the core of the degradation of the current political culture, I think, and Christians and college students seem to be just as guilty as the average American (of either party) of assisting that degradation.  

Sadly, it seems that political activity today can be defined as scoffing at anyone from the opposite party without being aware of their actual views. Political loyalty requires the refusal to admit that policy change affecting a population of 300 million could require nuance, and that there may yes indeed be quite a few exceptions-to-rules.  Political argument involves asserting that one's own personal political philosophy is all-encompassing of every problem faced by governance ever. Political maturity is proven by shouting responses to politicians on the television.

People calling themselves the followers of Christ should not support negative philosophies based on clichés and anti-values. People calling themselves lovers of truth should not snidely dismiss the suggestion that society's most complex problems require more nuanced policy change than their own bull-headed solutions.

Any person who considers his- or herself a Christian, a student, or a decent member of society should not adopt the self-satisfied and contemptuous attitude that coats so much of current political discourse. The trend of demeaning opponents with substance-less rhetoric is most painfully obvious in individual politicians, but reflects a sneering, childish tone that has descended upon two-party extremist politics in general.

While we cannot fix the idiosyncrasies of human behavior, we do have, if we intend to be members of society, a responsibility to remain aware of them and their effects on our actions and the actions of those around us. A small conscious awareness of the fallibility of a campaign based only on negative arguments will do a mountain of good compared to the comfort-seeking, obstinate attitude that is our alternative. I know that it seems like it'd be much nicer to not pay attention at all, but as long as we pay taxes and use highways, we inescapably are involved: a vigilance against lazy and anti-human political culture is a necessity for anyone preparing to become independent and employed.