Negative Republican attacks in primaries may haunt later

---

The Republican presidential primaries have been in progress for quite some time now.

The field of candidates has been narrowed to four candidates. There have been many interesting stories during this elimination process, providing many with some good talk show material.

In any event, as we get closer to the end, things are getting more serious.

Front-runner Mitt Romney won both the Florida and Nevada contests in a convincing manner. Rick Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are both trailing close behind.

At this time, there are several more battlegrounds left to fight. Based on the current pace, a candidate most likely will not be determined until the middle of the summer.

The primary in Florida was ugly. Romney and Gingrich traded accusations of dishonesty and wrongdoing. One of the purposes of the primary process (e.g., debates and other campaign activities) is to showcase the presidential qualities of the candidates to allow the voters a chance to make an informed choice.

Unfortunately, the candidates have resorted to mudslinging. Some will argue that this is precise­ly the purpose of campaigning.

First, you attack your opponent’s character, record and policy with the intent of showing that your opponent is not qualified to be the president.

Second, in comparison to your opponent, you puff yourself up to show that you are presidential material. In the recent Florida primary, the Romney camp spent about $16 million dollars, while the Gingrich camp spent about

$4 million. The unfortunate part is that a majority of these campaign funds were spent on negative ads.

What conclusions may be drawn from Romney’s big win in Florida? First, money talks. It seems that the more money you spend on ads, the better your chances are to win.

We are a fast-moving society; most will not spend the time to research the candidates. We are receptive to TV ads because they are quick and dirty.

Second, negative campaigning works. According to exit polls, 41 percent of voters responded that TV ads were important in determining their vote.

When the Republican presidential campaign began, all candidates made pledges that they would run a positive campaign. They wanted to portray a positive image for the voters. Unfortunately, there weren’t many positive things to portray.

The campaign has obviously not gone the way most of the candidates hoped. Once it gets ugly, it will only get uglier. American culture has changed in the past decade. We are a reality-TV-based society. We want controversy, and we want “in your face TV.” It is kind of sad, but unfortunately it’s true.

As I stated earlier, negative campaigning has been used in every election; mudslinging is not new to our politics. The difference is that is has gotten worse.

In the 1964 presidential election, candidate Lyndon Johnson’s campaign featured ads using a “Daisy Girl” suggesting that opponent Barry Goldwater would resort to nuclear acts in Vietnam if elected.

While the ad was imaginative and almost artistic, it clearly was a negative ad aimed at the fears of nuclear war. In any event, Johnson defeated Goldwater.

Uzlike the negative campaigns of yesteryear, today’s are direct, hateful and sometimes nasty. If you used some of these tactics in dealing with others, you might be setting yourself up for a lawsuit for slander and defamation.

One thing is clear. President Obama will face whoever survives the Republican primary, and the negative campaigning will continue.

However, I would think that Obama will have the advantage. By the time the general election occurs, the Republican candidates themselves will have given Obama everything he needs to use against his opponent. What else will there be to point out that already hasn’t been brought up by the candidates?

The sad part is that we, as the voters, will have to endure such unpleasant exercises in what should be a patriotic and honored right.

In all fairness, the purpose of campaigning is to win. In order to win, positive and negative campaigning is needed to win the votes of the general population.

Some scholars define politics as the “art of the possible,” with the focus on negotiation and compromise in achieving goals. Others portray politics as a dirty business where the ends justify the means and where you do whatever you need to do to win.

For me, it’s like trying to watch a hockey game with a chess player’s mentality. Having said that, I wonder whether this long process serves our country well.

While we want to make sure we elect the right person to be our president, negative campaigning may not only affect who we elect, it may affect the world’s view of our commander in chief.

A wounded leader is not an effective leader and will not be portrayed well in the interna­tional community.

Professor Yu-long Ling, a Franklin resident, is a respected expert in foreign policy. He writes this weekly opinion column for the Daily Journal.