Come on, you like it – you know you like it

As the leaves fall in autumn, so do whatever scruples are still clinging to the average political campaign. Yes, it’s attack ad season.

The pre-Halloween ritual brings a daily trick-or-treat of candidates’ ghoulish opponent-bashing commercials, along with their mutant cousins – the heavy-breather robo-calls to registered voters, and the zombie TV spots by those “independent” “non-partisan” “voter education” “issue” groups that misrepresent a roll-call vote and conclude, “Call Congressman So-and-So and tell him to take a giant flying leap.”

All of which produces the obligatory Ain’t It Awful chorus by journalists, academics and voters who express shock – shock – at the low level of campaign dialogue, wring their hands and despair for the future of the Republic. Oh, the incivility!

But wait. Is negative campaigning really that bad? David Mark doesn’t think so. Author of the book “Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning,” Mark argues in an essay published by Reason magazine (while you’re at it, read how Reason's Kerry Howley deflates the “sexless sex scandal” surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley) that attack ads are normal, healthy, even good for the election process. In an age of instant response, round-the-clock cable and Web postings, deceptions can quickly be parried and falsehoods rectified. Whatever truth exists can be distilled.

David Mark must take lots of showers.

But he’s not alone in believing that negative campaigning is normal and healthy for the political process. At least it’s a sign that people actually care. “Enthusiasm in politics usually contains a large element of hatred,” wrote political analyst Michale Barone after the brutish 2004 campaign – which Mark notes produced the highest voter turnout in 36 years.

The problem is that we’re accustomed to commercials for products and services that take great pains to offend nobody and leave consumers with a good feeling. That really doesn’t play in politics. Do warm and fuzzy, and you gloss over the hard issues – and the differences between candidates on them. Unless it’s a real show-stopper, you get more yawns and snickers than votes.

Besides, you can argue that campaigning is much less negative than in the past. John Adams’ supporters decried Thomas Jefferson’s bid for the presidency with strings of ugly slurs and racial epithets; accusations about fathering an illegitimate child dogged Grover Cleveland’s campaign, but he won anyway.

Today’s ads seem tame and issue-oriented by comparison. Even the attacks that get personal serve to reveal something important about the candidate by how he deals with them. “Voters hate negativity – except when they like it” is the bottom line.

“When candidates present clear, stark differences, citizens are better able to judge whom to support,” Mark writes. “When those lines are drawn sharply in harsh, tough ads and attacks in the press, it’s the voters who win.” I'm still a skeptic, but Mark's arguments are food for thought. As a wise guy once said, bring 'em on.

Admit it: Don’t you secretly love to watch politicians bash each other? Let’s talk about it.