"Study the past if you would define the future."
— Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)

To better analyze the 2008 campaign, consider Mudslingers: The Top 25 Negative Political Campaigns of All Time Countdown from No. 25 to No. 1 (2005) and Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning (2007).

Campaign consultant and political consultant Kerwin Swint asserts, in Mudslingers, that "people love negative campaigns." He reviews what he claims are the most negative campaigns. Supporting those who argue that negative ads today are "no worse" than in days of old, he puts the 2004 Bush-Kerry campaign at #25. The Johnson-Goldwater ("Daisy") campaign comes in at #23. The dirtiest, he claims, is the 1970 Democratic primary race between George Wallace and Albert Brewer. Don't expect an in-depth analysis of any campaign: the average is nine pages.

Going Dirty author David Mark, former editor-in-chief of Campaigns & Elections, focuses on modern campaigns but provides historical context. Mark argues that negative campaigns are on the rise post 9-11 but that “compare and contrast techniques” are a mainstay of American political campaigns. Like Swint, Mark reviews the Grover Cleveland campaign, when Republicans accused Cleveland of fathering an illegitimate child. Mark's book differs from Swint's because he provides insight into the campaign strategist, including Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

Both books suggest that negative campaigning is not the scourge that some (this author included) contend. Do negative ads really uncover "truths" that are essential to the office being sought, especially the office of the Presidency? Or do they further polarize the electorate? Neither book will answer this question definitively.

Buy these books! Mudslingers or Going Dirty

See the complete gift guide