Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentation in European Politics
Edited by Corina Andone and Bart Garssen
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1] 2022
► pp. 88–109

Negative campaigning

The argumentative potential of attacks in political election campaigns

| Universidade NOVA de Lisboa

This paper develops an argumentative perspective on attacks in political election campaigns. The perspective highlights the role that attack ads play in the justification of vote claims aiming to advance our understanding of the notorious practice and to bring about a nuanced assessment of its benefits and risks. In the examination, special attention is paid to the argumentative potential that links a certain criticism of an adversary to the defense of the negative vote against the adversary as well as to the defense of the positive vote claim in favor of a campaign’s candidate. Considering the argumentative potential is especially beneficial for capturing the role of attacks in important political processes, including accountability and the stimulation of an informed public political participation.

Keywords: accountability, argumentative potential, argumentation structure, attack ads, criticism, negative campaigning
Article outline
  • Negative election campaigns: The puzzling practice of attack ads
  • The structure of a political campaign argument
  • The argumentative potential of attacks in supporting a positive vote claim
  • The argumentative potential of attacks in the 2021 Portuguese local election campaigns
  • Conclusions, implications and challenges
  • References
Published online: 8 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21025.moh
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Ducrot, Oswald
1983 L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar Shanto
1995 Going Negative. New York: Free PressGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar
1994 “Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns.” Political Opinion Quarterly 581: 335–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Iyengar, Shanto, Simon, A., Valentino, N.
1994 “Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate?” American Political Science Review 881:829–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Ulrich
1994 The reinvention of politics: towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In Reflexive Modernization, ed. by Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash. Cambridge, Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brettschneider, Frank
2008 “Negative Campaigning”. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication, ed. by Wolfgang Donsbach, 3186–3188. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, Bruce
2004 Presidential Campaign Quality. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cicero, Quintus Tullius
2012 How to Win an Election: An Ancient Guide for Modern Politicians (Translated by Philip Freeman). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
De Nooy, Wouter, and Jan Kleinnijenhuis
2015 “Attack, Support, and Coalitions in a Multiparty System: Understanding Negative Campaigning in a Country with a Coalition Government.” In New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Measures, Causes and Effects, ed. Alessandro Nai and Annemarie Walter, 77–93. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Dolezal, Martin, and Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, and Wolfgang C. Müller
2015 “When Do Parties Attack Their Competitors? Negative Campaigning in Austria, 2002–2008.” In New Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Measures, Causes and Effects, ed. Alessandro Nai and Annemarie Walter, 165–181. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough
2012 Political discourse analysis. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Galasso, Vincenzo, Nannicini, Tommaso, and Salvatore Nunnari
2021 “Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 00, No. 0, XXXX1 2021, Pp. 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garssen, Bart
1997 “Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek.” [Argument schemes in a pragma-dialectical perspective. A theoretical and empirical examination]. With a summary in English. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
Garramone, Gina M.
1984 Voter response to negative political ads. Journalism Quarterly 61 (2):250–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geer, John G.
2006 In defense of negativity. Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago: The University of Chicago press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King
1993 “Why Are American Presidential Election Polls So Variable When Votes Are so Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science 231: 409–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Kasper M. and Rasmus Tue Pederson
2008 “Negative Campaigning in a Multiparty System.“ Scandinavian Political Studies 31, 4: 408–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselmayer, Martin
2019 “Negative campaigning and its consequences: a review and a look ahead.” French Politics 171: 355–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihnen, Constanza
2012 Instruments to Evaluate Pragmatic Argumentation: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen. Springer, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall
1992 Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, Paul Waldman, and Susan Sheer
2000 “Eliminate the Negative? Defining and Refining Categories of Analysis for Political Advertisements.” In Crowded Airwaves, edited by James Thurber, Candice Nelson, and David Dulio. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph. and J. Anthony Blair
2006 Logical self-defense. New York: International Debate Education Association.Google Scholar
Kahn, Kim F., and Patrick J. Kenney
2004 When do Candidates Go Negative? In No Holds Barred: Negative Campaigning in U.S. Senate Campaigns, ed. Kim .F. Kahn and Patrick J. Kenney, 19–37. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna
2011 “When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 55, 4: 797–813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard
1985 “Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 291:119–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R. and Ivy Brown Rovner
2009 Negative Campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science 12(1): 285–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman, and Paul Babbitt
1999 “The Effects of Negative Political Advertising: A Meta-Analytic Assessment.” American Political Science Review 931: 851–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R.; Sigelman, Lee; Rovner, Ivy Brown
2007 ”The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment”. Journal of Politics, 69, 4: 1176–1209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed
2016 Argumentation theory. In International encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy, ed by Klaus Jensen and Robert Craig, 1–15. New York: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattes, Kyle and David P. Redlawsk
2014 The Positive Case for Negative Campaigning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, William
1996 “In Defense of Negative Campaigning.” Political Science Quarterly 1111: 437–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, Dima
2016 “Goals in Argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments.” Argumentation, 301, 221–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b “Exercising accountability in European Parliamentary debates on statements: An argumentative perspective”. In Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations, ed. by Steve Oswald, Jerome Jacquin, and Thierry Herman, 243–262. Springer Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019a “Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?” Argumentation 33(3): 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019b “Managing Argumentative Potential in the Networked Public Sphere : The Anti- # MeToo Manifesto as a Case in Point”. In Proceedings of the 9th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed by Bart Garssen, david Godden, Gordon. R. Mitchell, and Jean H. M. Wagemans, 813–822. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Mohammed, Dima, and Maria Grazia Rossi
2022 “The Argumentative Potential of Doubt: From Legitimate Concerns to Conspiracy Theories About Covid-19 Vaccines”. In The Pandemic of Argumentation, ed. by Steve Oswald, Marcin Lewinski, Sara Greco and Serena Villata, 121–140. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muntigl, Peter
2002 “Politicization and Depoliticization: Employment policy in the European Union”. In Politics as Text and Talk, ed. by Paul Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 45–79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nábelek, Fruzsina
2017 Negative Campaigning and its Effects on Political Engagement. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference Oslo 2017. [URL]
Patterson, Thomas E.
2002 The Vanishing Voter. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1969 The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dam: University of Notre Dam Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William
1996 The Strategy of Rhetoric. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
2016 The discourse-historical approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 23–61. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Riker, William H.
1991 Why Negative Campaigning is Rational: The Rhetoric of the Ratification Campaign of 1787–1788. Studies in American Political Development 5(2): 224–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roese, Neal J., and Gerald N. Sande
1993 “Backlash effects in attack politics.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 231: 632–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca
1992 Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Stevens, Daniel, John Sullivan, Barbara Allen, and Dean Alger
2003 Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Conference, Philadelphia.
Swint, Kerwin
1998 Political Consultants and Negative Campaigning. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2017 Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser
2005 “Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity”. In The uses of argument. Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005, ed. by David Hitchcock, and Dan Farr, 75–84. Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen
2010 “ ‘In varietate concordia’ – United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type.” Controversia: The International Journal of Discussion and Democratic Revival 7 (1): 19–37.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
1992 Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
2002 Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs
1993 Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Walter, Annemarie S.
2014 “Choosing the Enemy: Attack Behaviour in a Multiparty System”. Party Politics 20(3): 311–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas N., Christ Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
2008 Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
West, Darrell M.
2001 Air Wars. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
2009 The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan UK. DOI logoGoogle Scholar