Don't you dare "go negative"!

It happens every presidential campaign cycle. The two major candidates promise to "take the high road", "stick to the issues", "not sling mud", (insert cliche here), etc... I've always found this amusing considering there's never been a candidate in the history of campaigns that has promised to "take the low road" or "play dirty". Yet, every four years we hear the same self-righteous promises of positivity followed shortly by both candidates strongly condemning the other of "going negative".

The most amazing part about this presidential campaign tradition is that the media act as though this is a new phenomenon. Columnists and reporters write dozens of articles every presidential campaign about how "negative" the campaign has gotten and how one or both of the candidates broke their promise to take the high road. It is absolutely remarkable how gullible the media is when it comes to this silly little finger pointing game that EVERY presidential candidate plays.

This past week has provided us a wonderful example of the "going negative" finger pointing game. The McCain campaign released two separate campaign adds over the last two weeks each built around the theme that Barack Obama is more popular fad than legitimate presidential candidate. In these ads the McCain campaign juxtaposes images of Barack Obama with images of pop icons that are more famous for the personal exploits rather than anything they've accomplished (see Paris Hilton). The Obama campaign immediately accused the McCain campaign of "going negative" and the media (like Pavlov' s dogs) immediately followed with dozens of segments, columns, and articles about the adds and whether or not they were too negative. (In general it was clear the media felt it already knew the answer to the question and that the answer was clearly- yes.) The New York Times even went as far as to publish an editorial stating that one of the ads (the one featuring Paris Hilton) was "tinged with racism". Their evidence of this was that the add contains images of young white women (Paris and Britney) followed by images of Barack Obama. (Irony of the New York Times' editorial I'm sure was lost on the editors because it's hard to see irony way up high in your ivory tower. Nevertheless the racist and stereotypical perspective rests not within the McCain's ad but within the editors' column, because it is the New York Times editors that seem to think that the image of a black man and young white women cannot be shown together without inferring some sort of negative relationship.)

The problem with all of this, besides the fact that it's a huge waste of time, is that one man's "negative" ad is another man's legitimate critique. Is the McCain campaign wrong to suggest that Barack Obama might be more show than substance? Some would say, yes. Others would say, no. That is exactly the point. It's all subjective. More importantly it's part of American politics and has been since Thomas Jefferson had his surrogates print "negative" editorials and articles about his political rivals (Alexander Hamilton and John Adams) in papers that were friendly to him.

Would our politics be better off, if the candidates simply spent their time debating the issues? Possibly. I think I personally would prefer if John McCain simply stuck the major political issues and avoided any political ads that included Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. (In McCain's defense, he has offered multiple times to hold weekly town hall debates with Barack Obama until the week before the election and Barck Obama has rejected his offer every time.) On the other hand, tough campaigns prepare each candidate for the intense scrutiny that either one of them will have to deal with on a daily basis as President of the United States.

This country has done alright, choosing it's leaders over the last 200+ years, better than any other modern democratic country. In the end, the biggest flaw in our presidential politics may not be the "negative campaigns" but the silly idea that presidential campaigns are supposed to be completely "positive".