Attack ads just hurt voters
ST. JOHN'S (CUP) — As the federal
government prepares to table its budget for
the upcoming fiscal year, Canada's political
heavyweights have begun throwing punches
over corporate tax cuts and stealth fighter
jets.
While party leaders have stated they would like to steer away from an election, new attack ads produced by the Conservatives imply the possibility of a political showdown. The ads focus on the leadership deficiencies of Michael Ignatieff, including his time living outside Canada. This demonstrates the escalation of negative attack ads, a technique already perfected by our neighbours to the south. Playing dirty seems to be part of an accepted platform in American politics.
Republican spin-doctors like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove wrote the playbook on negative campaigning as a cornerstone of electoral politics. The approach is basic but brutal: Use any conceivable trick at a party's disposal to drag the reputations of political opponents through the mud. It revolutionized the perception of political marketing and set a new tone in the competitive process that is at the very core of Canadian federalism.
Plenty of examples demonstrate how Canadian politics have been influenced by this strategy, one used with varying degrees of success.
During the 1993 federal election campaign, the Progressive Conservatives were trailing considerably in public opinion polls. Worn down by a series of unpopular moves orchestrated under Brian Mulroney's watch, the Tories decided to respond by smearing Liberal leader Jean Chrétien.
They decided to highlight Chrétien's facial deformity in a televised ad. The ad got significant coverage and appeared on a number of news broadcasts, creating considerable uproar among Canadian voters. Leading Tory strategists like Allan Gregg faced harsh criticism over their Republican-styled tactics.
In the 2006 federal election, the Liberals released a series of attack ads in an attempt to paint Stephen Harper as a right-wing extremist. They used a series of questionable quotes - often taken out of context - that focused on his desire to increase military presence in major Canadian cities, and his personal inclination to rid the health care system of women's abortion rights.
A party's survival depends on donated money and subsidies received from party funding. We shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars from the public purse to squeeze out negative ads that attempt to push wedge issues instead of legitimate policy discussion. If political parties want to change public perception and sway voters, it should be done with some basic decency and accuracy.
Let's ensure that political advertisements focus on the substance of national concerns and not the personalities of our political figures. Public policy is the framework of our society, and negative campaigning should be removed from the political blueprint.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
While party leaders have stated they would like to steer away from an election, new attack ads produced by the Conservatives imply the possibility of a political showdown. The ads focus on the leadership deficiencies of Michael Ignatieff, including his time living outside Canada. This demonstrates the escalation of negative attack ads, a technique already perfected by our neighbours to the south. Playing dirty seems to be part of an accepted platform in American politics.
Republican spin-doctors like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove wrote the playbook on negative campaigning as a cornerstone of electoral politics. The approach is basic but brutal: Use any conceivable trick at a party's disposal to drag the reputations of political opponents through the mud. It revolutionized the perception of political marketing and set a new tone in the competitive process that is at the very core of Canadian federalism.
Plenty of examples demonstrate how Canadian politics have been influenced by this strategy, one used with varying degrees of success.
During the 1993 federal election campaign, the Progressive Conservatives were trailing considerably in public opinion polls. Worn down by a series of unpopular moves orchestrated under Brian Mulroney's watch, the Tories decided to respond by smearing Liberal leader Jean Chrétien.
They decided to highlight Chrétien's facial deformity in a televised ad. The ad got significant coverage and appeared on a number of news broadcasts, creating considerable uproar among Canadian voters. Leading Tory strategists like Allan Gregg faced harsh criticism over their Republican-styled tactics.
In the 2006 federal election, the Liberals released a series of attack ads in an attempt to paint Stephen Harper as a right-wing extremist. They used a series of questionable quotes - often taken out of context - that focused on his desire to increase military presence in major Canadian cities, and his personal inclination to rid the health care system of women's abortion rights.
A party's survival depends on donated money and subsidies received from party funding. We shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars from the public purse to squeeze out negative ads that attempt to push wedge issues instead of legitimate policy discussion. If political parties want to change public perception and sway voters, it should be done with some basic decency and accuracy.
Let's ensure that political advertisements focus on the substance of national concerns and not the personalities of our political figures. Public policy is the framework of our society, and negative campaigning should be removed from the political blueprint.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
