Negative Campaign Advertising

With the call for a federal election looming, partisan campaign ads are beginning to air on Canadian television stations. Many new commercials concerning the Government’s ‘Action Plan’ have appeared, the advertisements selling the plan’s incentives to the Canadian public and attempting to demonstrate the positive outcomes of it. These advertisements, however, are not the only early indications of an election.

Recently, while I was watching a program on CBC, a political commercial I recognized from back in 2009 aired. In the commercial, Michael Ignatieff—leader of the federal Liberal party—was scrutinized due to his past employment outside of Canada (at Harvard University in the United States). A slew of interview clips of him professing his love for the United States were highlighted in the video, implying that Ignatieff considers himself to be an American and has only returned to Canada out of selfish desire for power. This message, crafted by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, is meant to persuade voters that Ignatieff is anti-Canadian, and therefore not qualified to run the country.

Complimenting these televised attack ads, another video criticizing Ignatieff appeared on the Conservative’s website, depicting the leader making statements (later deemed to have been taken out of context) which endorsed raising taxes and provoking an election which would result in monetary loss during a time of economic ‘crisis’. Strangely enough, this incriminating video—which incorporated pieces of a speech Ignatieff delivered at a Liberal caucus retreat—disappeared from the website only a day later, sans explanation as to why. Journalists  later speculated that the video’s “unethical” and blatantly erroneous nature prompted the public and even some ‘soft’ Conservatives to regard it as distasteful—making it more damaging to the Conservatives than effective against the Liberals.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/conservatives-yank-anti-ignatieff-attack-ads-amid-torrent-of-criticism--114825424.html

These latest events made me wonder: If negative advertisements—which, in fairness, have been used by both the Conservatives and Liberals—don’t make the accusing party look good per say, but merely the opposing party look bad, why are they used at all? Do parties or prime ministers really want to be elected to power on the basis of default, or solely upon their ability to make an opposition leader look incompetent? In the case of the Conservative’s attack on Ignatieff, they neither attack Liberal policies nor the Liberal Party in general; just the leader. As a young voter with a critical mind (thanks to my university education!), such ploys for votes seem absolutely desperate. Does a party honestly have so little to draw upon in terms of positive policies or rationale criticism of opposing party policies that it has to make farfetched claims about opposition leaders?

In light of these attack ads, I also began wondering how negative advertising affected Canadian political behaviour or, more specifically, citizen views of government. I myself consider negative advertising to be repugnant and utterly desperate when unjustified (Would I consider attacks on a leader justified if the leader was involved in illegal or immoral acts? Probably.), but do other citizens feel the same way I do, or are they naïve enough to vote according to which leader emerges from the mud-slinging less soiled? With campaigns these days reduced to ‘he said she said’ nonsense and the slandering party leaders, it really isn’t hard to believe why Canadian society has become so politically cynical.

What ever happened to rational debate about party policy? Why don’t parties emphasis their platforms—thereby building positive campaigns that excite citizens and prompt them to vote—instead of crafting objectionable ads that criticize opposition leaders for irrelevant things like previously working out of the country or physical defect (COUGHCHRETIENCOUGH)? Of course political competitors want to seem better than their opponents, but do they seriously think the best way of achieving their goals is to insinuate opposition leaders are anti-American or flagrantly use out-of-context statements?
 

We deserve some respect from our government. It’s an insult to think some politicians and strategists believe citizens to be so witless and gullible to buy into forged videos or nonsensical criticism of party leaders. Sure, there will always exist ignorant, unquestioning voters (and non-voters), but to assume most of the population is comprised of them is an offensive mistake. If the government wants to improve voter turnout and address the Canadian culture of cynicism, political parties should probably start by respecting one another and producing civilized campaigns that build up their own ideas rather than vilifying opposition leaders.

End of the day, if you’re going to attack, attack a party’s policies. If you’re going to attack a leader, narrow it to the leader’s actions within the parameters of their leadership.

For example: their decision to prorogue Parliament.