How Negative Campaigning Can Go Wrong

After reading an article that I will post at the bottom of this blog entry, I began to wonder if negative campaigning is losing effectiveness or has it become a fundamental component of the GOP.  This article suggested that the GOP has become fixated with the art of smear campaigns.  So much so that they have failed to tell us what they are for, only what they are against.  Is this just a part of the political fear tactic?  In order for a vote to be achieved, the constituency must "need" you.  I order for them to need you, fear must be cast onto the general public.  That fear is theoretically sparked by these smear campaigns the GOP has become so accustomed to running. Studies have been done that say negative ads while more memorable, do not tend to change voting outcomes.  Then why run them?

To me, this just doesn't seem very democratic.  What happened to representing the people?  But, you can represent them without their vote.  I pray there is a day when we can return to voting for people for who they are and what they've done, instead of who they're not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-watts/gop-negative-campaigning_b_4979956.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-negative-political-ads-work/

Social Media: The Impact on Social Issues

We as Americans have always been a society that valued the art of Protest.  It's ingrained in our society and this goes back to the colonists.  This is how many of our most significant social transgressions have been changed (i.e. Civil Rights, Suffrage, Marriage Rights, etc.).  Where social media may have started as an efficient method of keeping people connected no matter the distance, a new mechanism of the sites are being employed.  Social Media has become a magnifying glass for social movements.  It gives the movements a more efficient method for gaining attention for their cause.  This range varies from bad coaching decisions in the realm of sport or to social injustices like the "Black Lives Matter" campaign.  The biggest concept derived from social media is the mobility of information, no matter the origin.  There is no discrimination on what side of the argument is heard.  There is no discretion to the benefit of the mobilization of information.  Does this hurt the public as a whole?  How do we know what subjects need our attention?  Does the magnification benefit society as a whole, or could this be a negative forum for citizens to voice their displeasure.  Recently, we have seen the President of the Missouri University system retire this week although no crime or discrimination was committed directly.  We see social media react to a football game, and coaches wont have a job the following Monday.  Do we understand the power of public opinion?