1887
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21025.moh
2022-03-08
2022-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Ducrot, Oswald
    1983L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar Shanto
    1995Going Negative. New York: Free Press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 Quarterly58: 335–57. 10.1086/269431
    https://doi.org/10.1086/269431 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Iyengar, Shanto, Simon, A., Valentino, N.
    1994 “Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate?” American Political Science Review88:829–38. 10.2307/2082710
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2082710 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beck, Ulrich
    1994 The reinvention of politics: towards a theory of reflexive modernization. InReflexive Modernization, ed. byUlrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash. Cambridge, Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brettschneider, Frank
    2008 “Negative Campaigning”. InThe International Encyclopedia of Communication, ed. byWolfgang Donsbach, 3186–3188. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.   10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecn004
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecn004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Buchanan, Bruce
    2004Presidential Campaign Quality. New York: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cicero, Quintus Tullius
    2012How to Win an Election: An Ancient Guide for Modern Politicians (Translated byPhilip Freeman). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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.” InNew Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Measures, Causes and Effects, ed.Alessandro Nai and Annemarie Walter, 77–93. Colchester: ECPR Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dolezal, Martin, and Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, and Wolfgang C. Müller
    2015 “When Do Parties Attack Their Competitors? Negative Campaigning in Austria, 2002–2008.” InNew Perspectives on Negative Campaigning: Measures, Causes and Effects, ed.Alessandro Nai and Annemarie Walter, 165–181. Colchester: ECPR Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough
    2012Political discourse analysis. London, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Galasso, Vincenzo, Nannicini, Tommaso, and Salvatore Nunnari
    2021 “Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol.00, No.0, XXXX 2021, Pp.1–17.   10.1111/ajps.12610
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12610 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Garramone, Gina M.
    1984 Voter response to negative political ads. Journalism Quarterly61(2):250–259.   10.1177/107769908406100202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908406100202 [Google Scholar]
  15. Geer, John G.
    2006In defense of negativity. Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago: The University of Chicago press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226285009.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226285009.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King
    1993 “Why Are American Presidential Election Polls So Variable When Votes Are so Predictable?” British Journal of Political Science23: 409–51. 10.1017/S0007123400006682
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400006682 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hansen, Kasper M. and Rasmus Tue Pederson
    2008 “Negative Campaigning in a Multiparty System.“ Scandinavian Political Studies31, 4: 408–427. 10.1111/j.1467‑9477.2008.00213.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00213.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Haselmayer, Martin
    2019 “Negative campaigning and its consequences: a review and a look ahead.” French Politics17: 355–372. 10.1057/s41253‑019‑00084‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ihnen, Constanza
    2012 Instruments to Evaluate Pragmatic Argumentation: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. InTopical Themes in Argumentation Theory, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen. Springer, Dordrecht.   10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4041‑9_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_10 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall
    1992Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, Paul Waldman, and Susan Sheer
    2000 “Eliminate the Negative? Defining and Refining Categories of Analysis for Political Advertisements.” InCrowded Airwaves, edited byJames Thurber, Candice Nelson, and David Dulio. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson, Ralph. and J. Anthony Blair
    2006Logical self-defense. New York: International Debate Education Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kahn, Kim F., and Patrick J. Kenney
    2004 When do Candidates Go Negative?InNo 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]
  24. Krupnikov, Yanna
    2011 “When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science55, 4: 797–813.   10.1111/j.1540‑5907.2011.00522.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00522.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Lau, Richard
    1985 “Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science29:119–35. 10.2307/2111215
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2111215 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lau, Richard R. and Ivy Brown Rovner
    2009 Negative Campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science12(1): 285–306. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071905.101448
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071905.101448 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman, and Paul Babbitt
    1999 “The Effects of Negative Political Advertising: A Meta-Analytic Assessment.” American Political Science Review93: 851–75. 10.2307/2586117
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2586117 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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.   10.1111/j.1468‑2508.2007.00618.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed
    2016 Argumentation theory. InInternational encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy, ed byKlaus Jensen and Robert Craig, 1–15. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mattes, Kyle and David P. Redlawsk
    2014The Positive Case for Negative Campaigning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mayer, William
    1996 “In Defense of Negative Campaigning.” Political Science Quarterly111: 437–55. 10.2307/2151970
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2151970 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mohammed, Dima
    2016 “Goals in Argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments.” Argumentation, 30, 221–245.   10.1007/s10503‑015‑9370‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2018aArgumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Accusations of inconsistency in response to criticism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.   10.1075/aic.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.15 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2018b “Exercising accountability in European Parliamentary debates on statements: An argumentative perspective”. InArgumentation and Language. Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations, ed. bySteve Oswald, Jerome Jacquin, and Thierry Herman, 243–262. Springer Cham.   10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_11 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2019a “Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?” Argumentation33(3): 307–322.   10.1007/s10503‑018‑9473‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9473-y [Google Scholar]
  36. 2019b “Managing Argumentative Potential in the Networked Public Sphere : The Anti- # MeToo Manifesto as a Case in Point”. InProceedings of the 9th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed byBart Garssen, david Godden, Gordon. R. Mitchell, and Jean H. M. Wagemans, 813–822. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mohammed, Dima, and Maria Grazia Rossi
    2022 “The Argumentative Potential of Doubt: From Legitimate Concerns to Conspiracy Theories About Covid-19 Vaccines”. InThe Pandemic of Argumentation, ed. bySteve Oswald, Marcin Lewinski, Sara Greco and Serena Villata, 121–140. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑91017‑4_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  38. Muntigl, Peter
    2002 “Politicization and Depoliticization: Employment policy in the European Union”. InPolitics as Text and Talk, ed. byPaul Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 45–79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.4.05mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.05mun [Google Scholar]
  39. Nábelek, Fruzsina
    2017 Negative Campaigning and its Effects on Political Engagement. Paper presented at theECPR General Conference Oslo 2017. https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PaperDetails/37366
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Patterson, Thomas E.
    2002The Vanishing Voter. New York: Knopf.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dam: University of Notre Dam Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Riker, William
    1996The Strategy of Rhetoric. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
    2016 The discourse-historical approach. InMethods of critical discourse analysis, ed. byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 23–61. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Riker, William H.
    1991 Why Negative Campaigning is Rational: The Rhetoric of the Ratification Campaign of 1787–1788. Studies in American Political Development5(2): 224–283. 10.1017/S0898588X00000249
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X00000249 [Google Scholar]
  45. Roese, Neal J., and Gerald N. Sande
    1993 “Backlash effects in attack politics.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology23: 632–53. 10.1111/j.1559‑1816.1993.tb01106.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01106.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca
    1992Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Stevens, Daniel, John Sullivan, Barbara Allen, and Dean Alger
    2003 Paper presented at theAmerican Political Science Association Conference, Philadelphia.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Swint, Kerwin
    1998Political Consultants and Negative Campaigning. New York: St. Martin’s.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. van Eemeren, Frans H.
    2017Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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”. InThe uses of argument. Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005, ed. byDavid Hitchcock, and Dan Farr, 75–84. Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 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 Revival7 (1): 19–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2002Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410602442
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602442 [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs
    1993Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Walter, Annemarie S.
    2014 “Choosing the Enemy: Attack Behaviour in a Multiparty System”. Party Politics20(3): 311–323. 10.1177/1354068811436050
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811436050 [Google Scholar]
  56. Walton, Douglas N., Christ Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  57. West, Darrell M.
    2001Air Wars. 3rd ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Wodak, Ruth
    2009The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan UK.   10.1057/9780230316539
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316539 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21025.moh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.21025.moh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error