Few positives found in negative campaigning

It's that time of the political season where everyone - including true political junkies - are getting tired of the rhetoric, tired of the same commercials and tired of the promises we all know won't be kept. I have heard countless times this past week how so many people are repulsed by the negative nature of the political process. There's only one answer why politicians go "negative" during this phase of the campaigning - it works!

Experts of both parties and all political persuasions will tell you without reservation that negative campaigning is effective and generates votes. The bottom line is that we often make our political choices because we oppose a candidate, not necessarily because we favor the other. And the numbers are striking. Negative campaigning, mud-slinging, whatever - it just works. The warm and fuzzy campaigns don't generate nearly the support for a candidate that the allegation-filled advertising does. I wish that were not the case but it's our fault, not the fault of the politicians. We react when we hear something negative much more than when we hear something positive.

It has happened in the past but once again, the eyes of the nation will fall on our state come election night. The Senate race in Missouri is one of those close contests with the polls flip-flopping on an hour-by-hour basis. Incumbent Senator Jim Talent is being challenged by State Auditor Claire McCaskill and, by any definition, it's a dogfight. Both are heavily funded, both have ample name recognition and that has put the race in the national spotlight.

But the Talent-McCaskill race has also turned very negative in recent weeks. It comes as no surprise because of the closeness of the race and the stakes involved. Of course here in Missouri we're also bombarded with similar negative attacks from the Governor's race in nearby Illinois. But it's the Senate race in Missouri that will capture the spotlight on election night.

Our election process is flawed. Yet looking back on campaign history from 100 years ago, negative campaigning was even present then. The difference of course is that communication today spreads the message and the rebuttal within a matter of minutes not the weeks it once would have taken.

The only way we voters can counter the negative political pandering is not to simply complain but instead vote for a candidate because you embrace his or her views. Don't vote against a candidate. Granted, those two objectives are often one and the same. But I hear too many people say they won't vote for someone because of this or that reason. Rarely does someone say they want to vote in favor of a candidate because of his or her views on a specific topic. I fear we actually learn more about the candidates from the negative advertising than we do the positive advertising and campaigning.

Don't look for a change in the negative process until we the voters change. But too many people remain so uninformed that I see no way to reverse this trend. At least not in my lifetime.