primaries are around the corner, and right along with the upcoming elections will be the charges of mudslinging by campaign opponents.

Candidates may attempt to show how their opponent was the first to start the mudslinging, and the only reason they are responding is to clear their good names and to prove what scoundrels their opponents are, thus continuing the mudslinging.

It is a sad fact that a campaign is viewed as odd these days if there is no mudslinging. It is up to the voters to require a higher level of sophistication in the candidates they support and elect.

Advertisement

Politicians and their advisers will continue to pander to the lowest common denominator as long as it produces results. It is the voter who must raise the level of expectation required in their choices and hold candidates responsible.

This can be difficult because the United States does have a history of mudslinging that is hard to shake. Abraham Lincoln, one of the most respected politicians in U.S. history, was described as a practitioner of mudslinging during his career – mocking and mimicking his opponent’s appearance, speech and mannerisms.

The 1994 Southern Illinois political races had many cries of foul, politicians accusing their opponents of misstating, misinterpreting or blatantly changing facts.

Probably the most memorable occa-

sion of mudslinging was the race between Gerald Hawkins, D-Du Quoin, and Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, for the 115th Illinois House seat.

Both sides cried out against alleged distortions of records and character by the opponent. Bost was hammered by Hawkins for his alleged poor attendance while a member of the Jackson County Board. Hawkins was accused, by Bost, of being in the pockets of Chicago politicians.

But the politicians are simply giving their audience what consultants and some researchers say is most effective. Consultants that advise negative campaigning point out there is inconclusive evidence in research about backlash from voters against negative campaigning.

Advertisement*

Some researchers support the theory that negative ads help voters feel more secure in their decisions about candidates. There is even research that shows that the use of negative campaigning gives candidates a larger audience and broadens the amount of impact the candidates have on potential voters. While candidates with positive messages are said to be limiting their impact on potential voters.

The Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media reported evidence that an ad need not deal with an important topic or issue, rather the important fact for its creators is that it be stimulating and appear credible to be effective.

So with the upcoming elections, it is up to you the voter to raise the expectations, to educate yourself and to hold your candidates accountable to a higher level of conduct.

The voters need to express their dissatisfaction with negative campaigning. Don’t just react to the messages; evaluate them, dissect them and look at the motives. Research has shown that a message that is creative and appealing counts for more than the content. Voters must do better if they expect the politicians to do better.

The DE hopes the next round of elections will bring intelligent discussion and leave the sleaze and distortion to daytime talk-shows.