Poison Politics: Are Negative Campaigns Destroying Democracy?

The recent campaign madness detailed in this fall's Senate hearings has turned the sins and shortcomings of our elections system into the topic du jour. As such, one might look with high hopes to Victor Kamber, veteran Democratic campaign consultant, to provide some valuable lessons about what has gone wrong in our electoral process. One would be disappointed.

In Poison Politics, Kamber takes a valiant stab at providing insight into our political process, but ultimately comes up short because his arguments need more elaboration and his book lacks a disciplined scope. Kamber, in fits and starts, advances two main points: First, that certain despicable campaign practices have soured the public on politics. Second, that Republicans have poisoned electoral politics and public policy since 1980. The first argument is easier to define and sustain than the second. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the book's sprawling 18 chapters is devoted to advancing the "evil Republicans" charge. And since Kamber offers little in this indictment that kindred observers on the left have not already stated more cogently, many of his chapters make for a tedious, drearily familiar read. Those on left will encounter an echo chamber of their own thoughts; those on the right have surely heard all this before.

Kamber's strong liberalism leads him to frequent name-calling and questionable evidence to support his thesis. Republicans are guilty of "greedy Puritanism" and "grinch economics", under Ronald Reagan "the fabric of our nation quietly unraveled", and so forth. Much of this may be true, but Kamber can't be bothered with assembling evidence. As a campaign consultant, he seems to gain great satisfaction from rhetoric alone.

This is not to say that the book doesn't have some redeeming features. The chapters that bring Kamber's accumulated wisdom to bear on the subject of campaign practices are original and worth taking seriously. Kamber points out how far is too far when going negative, offering vivid examples from recent campaigns of attacks on candidates' character, race, gender, or sexual orientation that will make most readers' stomachs turn. Just about every example involves Republicans attacking Democrats. Is this a representative sample? It's hard to tell, but Kamber's choice of examples nicely fits the strong ideological spin of the book.

Some of Kamber's points about campaign ads, however, are questionable. He argues, without significant evidence, that negative advertising doesn't depress electoral turnout. Political scientists Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar provide a mass of systematic, contrary evidence in their recent book Going Negative. Kamber also argues that negative ads are not manipulative. They merely, in his words, "appeal to emotion instead of reason" Isn't that a central characteristic of manipulation?

The book does provide some thoughtful proposals for the hot topic of campaign finance reform. Though Kamber favors lowering PAC contribution levels (to the current $1,000 individual level), he does not join the chorus endorsing the McCain-Feingold ban on soft money to political parties. Instead, the book focuses on demand-side reforms. Kamber would give four hours of free airtime to each party during their national conventions, and additional radio and television time to the parties during the fall campaigns. Not only would this lessen the "money chase," but it would also channel more political communication through the parties, helping to curb our current riot of candidate individualism. Stronger party messages might actually improve public comprehension of campaign messages--an outcome devoutly to be wished.

Also worth considering are Kamber's reform proposals for partial public financing of congressional elections, a ban on new ads during the last week of an election, and extensive disclaimers in independent expenditure ads. All of these ideas, though, need greater exposition than Kamber provides. He seldom spends more than a paragraph or two explaining any of these proposals. The whole reform discussion occupies only one chapter.

Poison Politics is ultimately a victim of its own sprawl. Kamber has opinions on lots of subjects--political history, rhetoric, economic and social policy, suburbanization, Presidents Reagan and Clinton, progressivism, and electoral politics--and has tried to cram them into one book. He sprints from topic to topic, spouting opinions instead of giving the reader what he or she really could use: evidence that is better balanced and a more sustained analysis of the problems with campaigns and how to reform them.

Steven E. Schier teaches political science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn., and directs the Carleton College Washington program.