Mudslinging: effective or ineffective?

It’s been more than two centuries since the Barber of Seville promoted dirty campaigning and 100 years since it morphed into mudslinging.

But when candidates spend their time belittling their opponents, it begs the question: when they do throw dirt, does it really stick? Or are candidates better served when they wash their hands of mudslinging altogether?

The mudslinging in Windsor began near the end of August, when The Windsor Star reported Ward 7 candidate Angelo Marignaniwas making allegations about IrekKusmierczyk’s rental home. Later on, The Windsor Star reported that Larry Horwitz accused current council of leaving Windsor in a deficit. There were further reports regarding John Millson’s call for transparency which led Drew Dilkens to publicize a private email correspondence between Millson and current mayor Eddie Francis. The Windsor Star also reported Millson saying Dilkens had no actual infrastructure spending plan and that Dilkens never bothered to return phone calls from people who said their houses were flooded.

According to Television Advertising in Canadian Elections: The Attack Mode, 1993, over 50 per cent of the 1993 Canadian federal television campaign advertisements were negative. Authors of the book suggest mudslinging may steer people away from certain candidates since people find negative comments easier to remember and more interesting than positive ones. Other sources suggest negative campaigning is ineffective, causing people to veer away from those who engage in dirty tactics.

University of Windsor political science student Mohammad Akbar said mudslinging campaigns may be effective, but only temporarily.

“[…]when people start slinging the mud and complaining about other candidates… that’s why people start disengaging,” said Akbar. “They don’t want to hear all the gossip and the drama. They want to see a vision and they want to see positivity, to an extent.”

Akbar also said mudslinging hurts democracy as a whole. He said by engaging in mudslinging, candidates are ruining the relationships they have with each other and the relationships they have with the public. He said there are better ways to reach out. If candidates are worried about getting votes, they should work harder to reach out to the public and to present the issues rather than engage in verbal attacks against their competition.

Howard Pawley, a retired University of Windsor political science professor and former Manitoba premier, says there are no positives to mudslinging. He says those who engage in mudslinging just make themselves look bad and prove that they have no actual vision. Pawley says he hasn’t noticed much mudslinging in Windsor. For him, mudslinging is making negative comments about a candidate that have nothing to do with their ability to run a city. So when Horwitz claimed Windsor is in a deficit, Pawley said this was not mudslinging. However, Pawley has noticed other people are losing interest in voting because they see certain comments as attacks.

Pawley has noticed the candidates are not talking about the issues as much as they should.

“I think that in the Windsor elections, there has been insufficient discussion of the critical and important…” said Pawley.“I feel that that is not taking place as it should (and) I think it’s important that people have choices.”

It would appear that slinging mud in the short-term does stick. However, in the long-term, candidates may want to consider this: when slinging mud, don’t be surprised if the wind picks it up and slings it right back.