Why does the negativity work?

The bottom line is this: 75% of American voters do not care enough to independently think about who they’re voting for. There have been a few names in the news saying "there’s no shame in not voting." I have to agree. Most people will fall for the most convincing negative TV ad—regardless of its truth. The reason they fall for it is because the election isn’t important to them. As long as I have my SUV, Ben & Jerry’s and 401(k) who gives a crap who’s president? So let’s say part of that is ignorance and laziness. Definitely our fault as Americans for surrendering our rights to professional politicians. But there’s another part: disillusionment. Below is the political spectrum: L---—KerryBush--—R I am about half a dash from the "R" in my views. My pinko commie vegan friend is half a dash from the "L." Who is representing us? Nobody- the candidates are straddling the center. Why are they doing this? Because the American political system is set up so nobody else can compete. If the eminent Mr. Patrick Buchanan truly had a place on that scale, along with Michael Badnarik, Ralph Nader, and that wacky Larouche guy, there would be true competition. Were there 4-5 real parties, they would compromise, not polarize (I rhymed, like Al Sharpton!). As long as the Democrats and the GOP have a monopoly on power, people whose beliefs, hopes, and apsirations don’t fit within those platforms will be hard-pressed to believe there is really a choice and not an echo. Case in point: the debates. Who can say the same thing the cleverest, for the benefit of the rudderless 5% that haven’t already made up their minds? Oh, and Mr. Nader- you’re not invited! Can we regulate the negative ads? Well, what is negative? And if the campaign is not allowed to run a negative ad, what about the 527s? 527s, those mutant children of John McCain and Russ Feingold, the Sens. who boldly dared to "take the money out of politics." They took the money from the parties and candidates and shifted it to the extremes. Unintended consequences, and the end result is the same: money still runs politics. Now, Mark’s Evil War Profiteering Corporation gives money to the 527 "We hate Kerry and will kill our mothers to beat him" instead of the Bush campaign (who are true masters of attack politics, I must say- this alone will win them the election). Mark, regulating negative ads is a good idea, but think in terms of the market. If the ads did not work, the campaigns would not use them. Just like the other trash on TV: if we don’t watch "Who Wants to Be Humiliated for Money" every Thursday night, the market prevails and that show gets canned. What we need to do is not be swayed by negative ads, tell the pols and pollsters we don’t like them, and educate our friends and family. You’re absolutely right, Mark- trashing the other product should not help you sell your own. But the American political marketplace, it does work. The 527s are a step in the right direction, in a way, because the outsiders have more of a voice and can force the candidate to represent their view (case in point John Kerry, who became a lot more against the Iraq War because the wind has blown the Left’s money that way). At least now the antiwar crowd doesn’t have to just donate to the Dems and settle for the fence-straddling "I would have done the same thing in Iraq, but more, better." Finally a test to be president: What sort of questions would there be? "Who’s the attorney general of Djibouti?" The media already did that to Bush last time. Besides, some of our greatest presidents were considered ignorant or simple-minded- Reagan, Jackson, Lincoln. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and in eight years, his two major accomplishments were the 1994 Republican Revolution and being the second president to be impeached. John Kerry has so much information in that Botoxed Brahmin head that he can’t take a stand on any issue. On all these Mark, we have to yield to the market and let it dictate 1) whether negative ads are acceptable, 2) whether people will put up with a pointless "debate," and 3) whether the candidate is qualified to be elected. The more we interfere, the worse things will get.