"In Defense of Negative Campaigning" by William G. Mayer, in Political Science Quarterly (Fall 1996), Academy of Political Science, 475 Riverside Dr., Ste, 1274, New York, N.Y. 10115-1274.

One thing about recent American political contests on which all high-minded acade- mics, journalists, and other right-thinking sorts seem to agree is that there has been far too much mudslinging. Candidates should somehow be made to clean up their cam- paigns. Perhaps, some critics have gone so far as to suggest, the United States should take a cue from Venezuela and bar politicians from even mentioning their opponents in political advertisements. Not so fast, says Mayer, a political scientist at Northeastern University. "Negative campaigning certainly sounds bad; it's so, well, you know, negative." But it really isn't. In fact, he argues, it is "a neces- sary and legitimate part of any election."

No serious discussion of what a candidate (especially one who is not an incumbent) intends to do in office can be conducted without talking about "the flaws and short-comings of current policies," Mayer points out. "If a candidate is arguing for a major change in government policy, his first responsibility is to show that current policies are in some way deficient."

The information and analysis provided in "negative" speeches or ads can also be valu- able in themselves, he contends. The elec- torate needs to know about "the abilities and virtues [candidates] don't have; the mistakes they have made; the problems they haven't dealt with; theissues they would prefer not to talk about; the bad or unrealistic policies they have proposed." Only their opponents will air those issues.

And the candidate's character and behav- ior "are entirely relevant issues, more impor- tant than many policy questions," Mayer argues. People may disagree about which par- ticular character traits are most significant, but especially in elections for executive offices such as president, governor, or mayor, "where character flaws can have such impor- tant repercussions, I think we are well advised to cast the net widely. Certainly there is no reason to preclude a priori any discus- sion of a candidate's sexual behavior or intel- lectual honesty."

Finally, the threat of negative campaign- ing, Mayer points out, acts as a beneficial restraint on candidates. If they "always knew that their opponents would never say anything critical about them, campaigns would quickly turn into a procession of lies, exaggerations, and unrealistic promises."

Not all mudslinging is good, Mayer admits. The bad sort, he says, is bad because it's misleading (taking votes or actions out of context, for example), or deals with matters of dubious relevance, or is uncivil in tone. But being negative is not bad in itself.