THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, April 7, 1996 TAG: 9604050584
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MIKE KNEPLER, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 121 lines
A scene from his 1995 General Assembly campaign still haunts George Schaefer.
He was working Norfolk's Larchmont neighborhood when a fortyish man came to the door. Schaefer began handing him a campaign brochure.
``He said, `I don't take it. I just don't vote. I don't get involved in that anymore,' '' Schaefer said. ``He wasn't mean about it. But he was very firm.''
The man walked back inside, and Schaefer left, shaking his head.
``I was thinking, `Man, what have I done? This is a man who had just given up. How many more people out there are like this?' '' Schaefer said. ``If all they see is that Candidate `A' is called a sleazebag and Candidate `B' is called a sleazebag, then the voters start thinking, `Why should I bother?' ''
More citizens are asking themselves that same question. And often, their response is to not vote.
Negative ads entrench people who already have made up their minds - but push the vast middle ground of undecided voters away from politics. They don't vote, and they continue to lose their faith in government and in citizen participation.
This discouraging news was the conclusion of a new book by two political scientists, Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar, ``Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink & Polarize the Electorate.''
The impact is insidious, Ansolabehere and Iyengar contend.
Elected officials pay more attention to the extremes; issues become more polarized and harder to solve. At stake, the authors warn, are our national ideals that government - of, by and for the people - can be a force for common good.
Seen this way, negative advertising is an ethical issue, says William M. Sullivan, who studies professional ethics and is the author of ``The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism in America.''
It's a vexing problem, says Sullivan, a philosophy and sociology professor at LaSalle University in Philadelphia. How do you find the balance between winning elections and making sure your campaign doesn't discourage citizens from participating in public life?
Sullivan frames the issue in terms of our natural resources. There are immediate needs but also long-term concerns.
Extending the analogy, consider the voter-turnoff question this way: If citizen participation is an essential resource to our democracy, then are we being good stewards for young citizens and future generations?
Where do we look for answers?
Some, like George Schaefer, suggest that politicians take more care in selecting campaign consultants.
``I certainly have to take some of the responsibility for that,'' said Schaefer, an unsuccessful Assembly candidate whose term as Norfolk Republican chairman recently ended. ``What we have now are hired guns doing 30-second assassinations, not physically but reputation wise, a little bit at a time.''
``It's become politics as war, not politics as debate,'' Schaefer said. ``In a debate, both sides can walk away afterwards, you don't try to ruin your enemies forever.''
Some political scientists say revitalized political parties can help.
Ansolabehere and Iyengar say political parties promote tickets of candidates, not individuals. Because of that, they reason, it would be in the best interests of parties to mobilize high voter turnout, not suppress it through negative campaigns.
Government can help political parties, they say, by changing campaign-finance laws to give public funds to parties instead of to individual candidates.
Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, also wants stronger political parties.
``Ultimately,'' he said, ``the enforcers must be the voters themselves. They must punish the abusers. Even in every election there's a lesser evil, if you can't find a good. So voters should reward candidates who are cleaner and punish those who are dirtier.''
Vote only for the most ``ethical'' candidates? What happens when all political rivals indulge in questionable tactics? Or when your ``good'' candidate launches a pre-emptive attack, caving into the advice of consultants? What if the candidate who favors your issues plays dirty?
Sabato concedes difficulties.
``There are no capital `T' truths on many of these subjects. Nor is there anything wrong with certain types of negative campaigning, such as comparing records,'' he said. ``One person's facts is another person's distortion. These things are never as clean cut as the ethical codes suggest.''
Citizens to the rescue?
Broad-based grass-roots groups already are seeking solutions. Some are devising codes of conduct for politicians and getting candidates to talk about citizen platforms.
All the citizen efforts involve the voluntary compliance by candidates. There are no government controls, only the force of community standards and expectations.
Citizens are even having fun. In Minnesota, the Campaign Advertising Code Coalition will launch its code-of-conduct project with a film festival of bad political advertising.
It's not always easy.
Some hard questions:
If you draw up a code of conduct, how will you define negative campaigning? If you don't want negative, what do you want? How do you define that?
How do you leave room for genuine, vigorous debate between legitimate differences of opinion?
How do you get candidates to take heed, especially when many other citizens are walking away from political involvement?
Finding answers can be hard work. It involves citizens talking and listening to one another, finding consensus and setting examples - especially for novice candidates not yet jaded by cynical consultants.
Voters might look to other grass-roots successes for inspiration. For example, many citizens have gained confidence to face down drug dealers by forming block watches and talking with each other.
Who do you talk with?
Talking with many people is important, but so is getting a wide array of citizens, especially those with different backgrounds and viewpoints.
The idea, says Susan S. Lederman, former national president of the League of Women Voters, is to develop a sense of the community.
It's not enough for members of a broad-based committee to talk among themselves.
``Get beyond the usual suspects. Try to get new groups of people involved, people who talk to each other a lot - like book clubs, church groups, even bowling leagues - but don't normally talk about politics,'' said Janna Haug, an organizer of the Minnesota Compact Coalition. by CNB