Although attacks ads are designed to discredit the opponent, the truth is attack ads are designed to make voters disinterested. A disinterested voter is less likely to vote. So why would people want others to not vote? Because they have a feeling that their supporters will and, if they can discourage their opponent's supporters to not vote, their candidate wins. See how easy that is? They don't really want to discredit the other person, just make the rest of us sick of the election. That is one reason why we need to not pay attention to the ads. Voting is part of our responsibility in this democracy. If we don't vote, we don't perform our civic duty and we don't have the right to complain about what we don't like.
Attack ads are misleading half-truths blown out of proportion. A tidbit of information is packaged to make the target of the ad look like a self-centered dimwit. Nothing is sacred when attack ads are written. During the last presidential campaign, Sarah Palin's family life was attacked. I've seen ties to the Mob exploited and questionable moral values highlighted. These, however, are not the norm. The people who write these ads are adept at reading the cause of the discontent in America and exploiting that. So, although we are perceiving the ad to be attacking one person, in actuality, they are making fun of voters, assuming that we are so gullible we will willingly believe what we are told without question. At their very core, this is what attack ads are, a mockery of the American people.
So who is behind all this? Everyone. The candidates support the use of the ads, even though they routinely deny it. The money they use for these ads come from a variety of donors, and you can bet that if it is a corporation or political group paying for them, the candidate who wins will owe someone a lot. And, even though the groups paying for the ad have "grass-roots"-sounding names, they are usually paid for by corporations who have a lot to lose if real change were to come to Washington. For this, you can thank the Supreme Court, who recently ruled that corporations enjoy protection under the first amendment. Finally, any voter who passes on the "information" in these ads as if it was true are also guilty of mocking the rest of us.
So what can a person do? First, vote on election day. I won't tell you for whom you should vote, although if asked, I'd be happy to tell you. But by not voting, you are denying your civic duty and allowing "them" to win. Second, hold your candidates to a higher standard. They will listen to their constituents if they want to gain office. Call or write your candidate and ask them to forgo the attack ads and denounce any that someone else pays for. Personally, I would be tempted to vote for the devil if he would run a truly clean campaign. Ask the candidate to run on their platform and outline where they stand on issues over which they have no control but do have influence. Finally, do your own homework. Learn what a candidate is about and where they have stood previously. The information is available if one takes a moment to look. If we become active, informed voters, those who support the attack ads will stop treating us like sheep.
The founding fathers, in part, formed the Electoral College because they feared what would happen if the general public elected the president. Alexander Hamilton wrote, It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. What was true then about electing a president is true today in all elections. We should use thought and reason to elect those who govern us, not choose because of an emotional reaction to an ad designed to mock us and make us relinquish our civic duty.
