ABSTRACT
Each fall Americans are subjected to the rigors of the election campaign: an elaborate, lengthy spectacle, involving anxiety-inducing diagnoses of the present and dire predictions of the future if we should vote for the wrong candidate. Political opponents are repeatedly vilified while candidates shamelessly sell their own unique virtues, thoroughly grounded in Kitsched notions of “American” values, to a media audience. The mudslinging is fast and furious as election day draws nigh, with each respective candidate blaming the other for flinging the dirt. Concurrently, news stories highlight a disturbing level of voter apathy and political disenchantment. The “morning after” analyses decry the negative campaigning and call for a return to a more civil political discourse, invoking a “good old days” theme. The inference is that the candidates of old were far more civil, much less spectacular. Yet, our poll-driven politicians persist in viciously attacking their opponents as part and parcel of the democratic process. They persist, in part, because mudslinging, an intensification of the Kitsched spectacle, works.
