I wish I had better news, but the political frenzy won’t end when Election Day arrives. For most of us—not pollsters, campaign staff, candidates, or journalists—the hope is simply that it will finally quiet down. It probably won’t.
Election Day has become less an ending than a handoff from one campaign to the next. I’ll be relieved when the votes are cast, but I don’t expect the bitterness to disappear on November 4.
Campaigns increasingly seem to revolve around two questions: what voters think of President Trump, and which side has done a better job tearing down its opponent. Policy and the country’s future often get pushed aside.
Negative advertising has long been part of American politics. The Willie Horton ad helped George H.W. Bush defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Lyndon Johnson’s “Daisy” commercial famously tied his opponent to the danger of nuclear war.
What feels different now is how constant the attacks have become. They once tended to be held back for a last-ditch effort. Now, with super PACs playing a major role, attack ads can run for months, aiming to erode an opponent’s credibility and reputation.
In Montana, candidates once ran campaigns that focused more on issues and positive principles. Maybe that era has passed. This election will offer another test of whether hard-edged politics works.
Democrat Sam Forstag is running for the House seat being vacated by Ryan Zinke, and some of the ads supporting him have accused Republican Aaron Flint of being corrupt without offering evidence. One asks why people call him “For Sale Flint.” The answer, as far as the ad makes clear, is that Forstag’s backers are making the accusation.
The commercials are polished, and some voters may believe them. But the evidence offered is that Flint has accepted campaign donations from businesses Forstag opposes. Taking legal contributions, by itself, doesn’t show that a candidate is being bought. Ads that make such claims without proof should at least make voters question the people behind them and their willingness to use inflammatory language.
Flint has responded by noting that Forstag is not only a smokejumper, as he presents himself, but has also worked as a paid lobbyist for progressive groups, including the ACLU. Flint’s ads came later, and it seems reasonable that he would answer an attack rather than let it go unanswered. There’s also a distinction between the claims: Forstag’s ads speculate about what Flint might do, while Flint’s point concerns Forstag’s past work.
Still, I don’t expect the harshness to end once the ballots are counted. The partisan divide looks difficult to bridge, and politicians—and the rest of us—will likely keep attributing opponents’ views to greed or ignorance.
The parties will find a way to claim success whatever happens. A Republican setback will be described by Democrats as a rejection of Trump. Republican gains will be presented by Trump as a vindication. If the outcome is mixed, both sides may declare victory.
As the results come in, it may be worth asking what we want from elections beyond a winner and a loser. Those outcomes matter, of course. But the dignity of the process matters too.
The deeper problem isn’t only dishonest politicians. It’s a system that rewards division, hostility, and deception. That won’t change while voters keep rewarding the very tactics they say they dislike.
