information is presented to us by both nominees and their contender in an effort to bolster their own reputation, and undermine their challenger’s. Chances are, anyone who has been the target of these efforts can attest to the overwhelming use of negative campaign advertisements by the two main party candidates. I was at first appalled and turned off at the extent to which each party attempted to accentuate the flaws of their opponent. These negative ads have resulted in many constituents like me becoming fed up with the attacks. However, continual exposure to this main method of undermining has sparked my assessment of the importance of this system of checks which serves as an intangible constraint on the actions taken, and acquaintances made by candidates.The Democrats and the Republicans have both constructed their fair share of ads attempting to show evidence of a history of poor decision making by the opponent. McCain is usually illustrated by his habit of voting with our current president who holds the record for the lowest approval rating in modern history, while the GOP usually typify Obama by his past associations with domestic terrorist William Ayers (above), and author of the G-Damn America sermon, Reverend Wright. I find myself asking: Is this constant reminder of past actions taken by these two men fair?, if not why?, and if so, then what constitutes an unfair ad?
The establishment of laws in America nearly always reflects an effort by legislators to ensure citizens act in a manner exhibiting moral qualities. This leads me to believe that the maintenance of good character by citizens is of utmost importance to our nation’s leaders. Consequently, I have decided that it is not only fair, but necessary for ads to exist that make voters aware of past actions taken by candidates, allowing for the evaluation of their character which will influence their decision making as the most powerful executive in the United States. The danger of this morality check is that opponents have not always presented whole, accurate information in regards to their antagonist’s dealings.
In summation, I conclude that negative campaign ads are crucial if they give accurate accounts of ca
ndidate’s acquaintances and proceedings which prove to cast a shadow of doubt over the opponent’s integrity. Personal attacks on inbred candidate qualities however are unjust and should not be used by the parties.Do you think negative campaign ads should be used? What constitutes a fair ad to you? Why? Do any ads you have encountered present information regarding either candidates that cause your questioning of their integrity? Which one(s)?
