In defense of attack ads.

• Author: Howley, Kerry
• Position: Soundbite

When he was editor in chief of Campaigns and Elections, David Mark watched vicious attack ads take down many aspiring pols. But instead of bemoaning the low blows struck in the name of electoral politics, from Swift-boat slanders to friend-of-terrorist smears, Mark is convinced that negativity is a distinctly positive feature of U.S. elections. In Going Dirty (Rowman & Littlefield), he lays out and defends the sordid history of negative campaigning.

Assistant Editor Kerry Howley spoke with Mark in February. A longer version of this interview can be read online at reason. com/links/linkso21006.shtml.

Q: Is one party more likely to go negative?

A: They are equally likely to be negative, but I think the Republicans are often more effective at it. They know which emotional hot buttons to push--guns, abortion, affirmative action. Democrats aren't as willing to go for the jugular.

Q: What's over the line in 2006?

A: Not much. I think you still want to be careful with somebody's religion. Until recent history, religion was fair game. JFK in 1960 had to fend off questions about his Catholicism. But that really backfires on people now. A good test case will be how Mitt Romney, [Mormon] governor of Massachusetts, is treated in 2008.

Q: Campaign finance reform was supposed to curtail negative tactics.

A: Which speaks to the utter futility of campaign finance reform. All McCain-Feingold did was drive the big money away from the political parties to unregulated groups who were willing to say anything. Outside groups are willing to make charges that...