David Ocamb

Every election cycle, journalists interview people complaining about all of the attack ads they’ve seen on TV and then their coverage turns to the talking heads who bemoan the demise of political discourse in America.  Yet, any historian can tell you that politics has been incredibly dirty since at least the Thomas Jefferson/John Adams race and has remained cutthroat since that time.  So, if the public and media complain about mudslinging, why have politicians always resorted to it and why do they continue to utilize it? 

The answer is easy.  It works.

Every election cycle, I have clients come to me and say they want to run a positive race.  Those candidates that remain firmly committed to running a positive race figure out just how powerful negative messaging is on Election Day when the results come in and they fail to secure victory.

Running for office isn’t just an art … it’s an actual science.    People are inundated with messaging every day and cannot possibly critically analyze all of it.  Thus, throughout years of evolution, our brains have developed the ability to quickly assimilate information to make judgements.  Our brains rely on certain frameworks based upon patterns of events and “myths” they learned as children (for more in-depth study see the linguistics work of George Lakoff ). 

These frameworks vary based upon the generation a person is a member of, the person’s gender, race, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, geographic location and a multitude of other factors.  However, there are certain unifying “myths” that transcend almost all barriers in the United States.  One of these is the “myth” of the corrupt politician.  This myth is a stereotype that is not an accurate portrayal of all politicians… or even the majority.  However, like it or not, every time a person hears about a politician they will instantly assume they’re all the same–corrupt. 

Since people begin by assuming a politician is corrupt, it takes a lot to dissuade them from this view.  It is possible to create messaging that breaks through this mental clutter and creates a gut values connection, but it’s not easy.  On the other hand, creating messaging that reinforces the belief that X is a corrupt politician is relatively easy and usually very effective, since you’re merely telling a person something they’re predisposed to believe. 

Working on a public affairs or issue campaign isn’t as clear-cut as a political candidate campaign where you know you are operating under the corrupt politician frame.  One must ascertain the goals of the messaging campaign, the public’s current perception of the issue and/or company, and analyze the most effective mechanism to achieve the messaging goals.  In some instances, negative campaigning will naturally resonate because the public already dislikes your opponent.  In other instances, when your opponent has greater credibility than you do, negative campaigning will merely make the public dislike you more.  It all goes back to one thing: the stereotype people have of your group and your opposition.

Now, don’t get me wrong, not all negative ads work.  They can create a backlash, so one has to be artful in how to pull the trigger.  Being artful does not mean withholding an attack, it merely means choosing the correct messaging tool (for example: surrogate, direct mail, TV, online, robo-calls, amongst many others) to ensure maximum effect with minimum risk.  However, I can not over emphasize this point: effective messaging is a science and is based upon years of research into propaganda techniques.