Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T09:09:31.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Negative Campaigning Is Rational: The Rhetoric of the Ratification Campaign of 1787–1788*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

William H. Riker
William H. Riker
Affiliation:
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Electoral campaigns are a distinguishing feature, worldwide, of modern representative democracies. For most citizens in most polities, campaigns provide a compelling incentive to think about government. So campaigns thus are a, perhaps the, main point of contact between officials and the populace over matters of public policy. If, as democratic theorists postulate, rulers are responsible to the ruled, the nexus of responsibility, the time and place that we impose it, is during campaigns and the elections in which they culminate.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Fall 1991 , pp. 224 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard K., and Gaudet, Hazel, The People's Choice (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1944)Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960)Google Scholar; Flanigan, William H. and Zingale, Nancy H., Political Behavior of the American Electorate, 5th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1983)Google Scholar; and Enelow, James and Hinich, Melvin J., The Spatial Theory of Voting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

2. Riker, William H., The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Page, Benjamin I., Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Aldrich, John H., Before the Convention: A Theory of Campaigning for the 1976 Presidential Nomination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Riker, William H., Liberalism against Populism (San Francisco, W.H. Freeman, 1982; Prospect Heights, Illinois, Waveland Press, 1989)Google Scholar. Bartels, Larry M., Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; and Kessell, John, Presidential Campaign Politics, 3d ed. (Chicago: Dorsey Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

3. Riker, Liberalism against Populism, chap. 8; Riker, William H., The Art of Political Manipulation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Axelrod, Robert, “Presidential Election Coalitions in 1984,” American Political Science Review 80 (03 1986): 281–84Google Scholar; Kingdon, John, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (Boston: Little Brown, 1984)Google Scholar; and Carmines, Edward G. and Stimson, James A., Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

4. Pool, Ithiel de Sola, Abelson, Robert P., and Popkin, Samuel, Candidates, Issues, and Strategies: A Computer Simulation of the 1960 and 1964 Presidential Elections (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Kramer, Gerald H., “A Decision Theoretic Analysis of a Problem in Political Campaigning,” in Mathematical Applications in Political Science, vol. 2, ed. Bernd, Joseph L. (Dallas: Arnold Foundation of Southern Methodist University, 1966), pp. 137–60Google Scholar; Brams, Steven J., The Presidential Election Game (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; and Mauser, Gary A., Political Marketing: An Approach for Campaign Strategy (New York: Praeger, 1983)Google Scholar.

5. White, Theodore H., The Making of the President (New York: Atheneum, 1961)Google Scholar; and Kessell, John, The Goldwater Coalition: Republican Strategies in 1964 (Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1968)Google Scholar.

6. Stigler, George J., The Theory of Price, 4th ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1987) pp. 32–33Google Scholar.

7. Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957)Google Scholar; Mauser, Political Marketing; and Enelow and Hinich, Spatial Theory.

8. Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R., News That Matters: Television and American Opinion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

9. Of course, I maintain that this law, assumed for illustration, is not valid. If it were, some knowledge of persuasion would exist, contrary to my initial assertion.

10. W. Rhys Roberts, trans., Rhetoric, by Aristotle, bk. 1, chap. 9, 1367 b 7.

11. Ibid., bk. 2, chap. 1, 1377 b 25.

12. Ibid., bk. 2, chap. 2, 1380 a 1.

13. Housman, A. E., The Name and Nature of Poetry (New York: Macmillan, 1933), p. 46Google Scholar.

14. Doob, Leonard, Propaganda: Its Psychology and Technique (New York: Holt, 1935)Google Scholar; and Kris, Ernst and Speier, Hans, German Radio Propaganda: Report on Broadcasts During the War (London: Oxford University Press, 1944)Google Scholar.

15. McGuire, William J., “The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change,” in Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, E, The Handbook of Social Psychology (Addison Wesley, 1969), pp. 136–314Google Scholar; and Sears, David O. and Whitney, Richard E., Political Persuasion (Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1973)Google Scholar.

16. Hovland, Carl I. et al. , The Order of Presentation in Debate (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

17. McGuire, William J. and Papageorgis, D., “Effectiveness of Forewarning in Developing Resistance to Persuasion,” in Public Opinions Quarterly 26 (1963): 24–34Google Scholar; McGuire, William J., “Inducing Resistance to Persuasion: Some Contemporary Approaches,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Berkowitz, Leonard (New York: Academic Press, 1964), pp. 191–221Google Scholar; and Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T., “Forewarning, Cognitive Responding, and Resistance to Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (1977): 645–55Google Scholar.

18. Festinger, , Leon, , A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, 1957)Google Scholar; and Patterson, Thomas and McClure, Robert, The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Politics (New York: Putnam, 1976)Google Scholar.

19. Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel, “The Framing of Decisions and the Rationality of Choice,” Science 211 (1981): 453–58Google Scholar; Kahneman, and Tversky, , “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica 47 (1979): 263–91Google Scholar; Slovic, Paul, Fischoff, Bernard, and Lichtenstein, Sarah, “Behavioral Decision Theory,” Annual Review of Psychology 28 (1977): 11–39Google Scholar; and Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

20. Burgoon, Michael, “Empirical Investigation of Language Intensity,” Human Communication Research 1 (1975): 251–54Google Scholar; and Burgoon, Michael and Bettinghaus, Envin P., “Persuasive Message Strategies,” in Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research, ed. Roloff, Michael E. and Miller, Gerald R. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980), pp. 141–70Google Scholar.

21. My view of the shortcomings of the psychological approach is shared by some specialists in communication, like Miller, Gerald R., “On Being Persuaded,” in Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research, ed. Roloff, Michael E. and Miller, Gerald R. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980) pp. 25–26Google Scholar.

22. Kaminski, John and Saladino, Gaspare, Commentaries on the Constitution: Public and Private (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1981–1988), 5 volumesGoogle Scholar.

23. SirNamier, Lewis, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George the Third (London: Macmillan, 1929)Google Scholar; SirNamier, Lewis and Brooke, John, The House of Commons 1754–1790, 3 vols. (London: Seker and Warburg, 1986)Google Scholar; and Porritt, Edward and Porritt, Annie B., The Unreformed House of Commons, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909)Google Scholar.

24. Brown, Robert E., Middle Class Democracy and the Revolution in Massachusetts, 1691–1780 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1953)Google Scholar; Brown, Robert E., Reinterpretation of the Formation of the American Constitution (Boston: Boston University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; and Brown, Robert E. and Brown, B. Katherine, Virginia 1705–1786: Democracy or Aristocracy (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

25. Kenyon, Cecelia M., “Men of Little Faith: The AntiFederalists on the Nature of Representative Government,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 12 (1955), pp. 3–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. Storing, Herbert, What the Anti-Federalists Were For, vol. 1 of The Complete Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. Farrand, Max, ed., Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University Press, revised edition, 1964)Google Scholar.

28. Main, Jackson T., The Anti-Federalists: Critics of the Constitution (1961Google Scholar; rept. New York: W. W. Norton, 1974), chaps. 6–8; and Storing, What the Anti-Federalists Were For, chaps. 2–4 and 6–8.

29. Incidentally over half of the weight of the Federalist is five subjects: standing army, 77,246; national defense, 76,069; advantages of federation, 121,764; advantages of union, 130,121; and separation of powers, 39,181; or 494,381 weighted words, about 55% of the Federalist in my sample.

30. Main, Anti-Federalists.

31. Ford, Paul Leicester, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (1888 rept. New York: Da Capo Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Ford, Paul Leicester, Essays on the Constitution of the United States (1892; rept. New York: Burt Franklin, 1970)Google Scholar; and MacMaster, John Bach and Stone, Frederick D., Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution 1787–88 (Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1888)Google Scholar.

32. Main, Anti-Federalists, p. 127.

33. Storing, What the AntiFederalists Were For, p. 6 (emphasis in the original).

34. Ibid., p. 22.

35. Bailyn, Bernard, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

36. Ibid., pp. 62, 112–19.

37. For an excellent discussion of the difference between positive and negative campaigning, see Doron, Gideon, “A Rational Choice Model of Campaign Strategy,” in The Elections in Israel, 1981, ed. Arian, Asher (Tel Aviv: Ramot, Tel Aviv University, 1983), pp. 213–31Google Scholar.

38. Friedman, Milton and Savage, L. J., “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Journal of Political Economy 56 (1948): 279–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Markowitz, Harry, “The Utility of Wealth,” Journal of Political Economy 60 (1952): 151–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40. Fishburn, Peter C. and Kochenberger, Gary A., “Two Piece von Neumann-Morgen-stern Utility Functions,” Decision Sciences 10 (1979): 503–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41. Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel, “The Framing of Decisions and the Rationality of Choice,” Science 211 (1981): 453–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. Allais, Maurice, “Le Comportment de l'Homme Rationnal devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axioms de l'Ecole Américaine,” Econometrica 21 (1953): 503–46Google Scholar; and Allais, Maurice, “The So-Called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions under Uncertainty,” in Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allau Paradox, ed. Allais, Maurice and Hagen, O. (Boston: Reidel, 1979)Google Scholar.

43. Lichtenstein, Sarah and Slovic, Paul, “Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decision,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 89 (1971): 46–55Google Scholar; and Lichtenstein, and Slovic, , “Response Induced Reversals of Preference in Gambling: An Extended Replication in Las Vegas,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 101 (1973): 16–20Google Scholar.

44. Slovic, Paul and Lichtenstein, Sarah, “Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective,” American Economic Review 73 (1983): 596–605Google Scholar.

45. Grether, David M. and Plott, Charles R., “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon,” American Economic Review 69 (1979): 623–38Google Scholar.

46. Reilly, Robert J., “Preference Reversal: Further Evidence and Some Suggested Modifications in Experimental Design,” American Economic Review 72 (1982): 576–84Google Scholar.

47. Tversky, and Kahneman, , “The Framing of Decisions” Kahneman and Tversky, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47 (1979): 263–291Google Scholar; and a collection of essays by many writers: Kahneman, , Slovic, , and Tversky, , Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar

48. Ellsberg, Daniel, “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (1961): 643–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. Einhorn, Hillel J. and Hogarth, Robin M., “Decision Making Under Ambiguity,” in Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology, eds. Hogarth, Robin M. and Reder, Melvin W. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

50. Ferejohn, John and Fiorina, Morris, “The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis,” American Political Science Review 68 (1974): 525–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51. When the number of other voters (n − 1) is even, there are n possible divisions of those (n − 1) voters—(n − 1) to zero, (n − 2) to one, …, zero to (n − 1)—of which exactly one is a tie that the nth voter can break in his or her favor. When the (n − 1) other voters is an odd number, there are n possible divisions of which exactly one permits the nth voter to change his or her loss into a tie. So, assuming even and odd are equally likely, the voter has 1/n chance of being decisive, either to win or to tie.

52. Note that, when voting, the voter is expected to get(b − c) with a chance of 1/n and ( −c) with a chance of (n − l)/n. Summing these terms gives E(v) = (b − c)/n + (n − 1)(−c)/n = (b − cn)/n.

53. Kaminski and Saladino, eds., Commentaries on the Constitution vol. 3:386–87

54. Main, The Anti-Federalists, Appendix A.

55. MacKuen, Michael, “Exposure to Information, Belief Integration, and Individual Responsiveness to Agenda Change,” American Political Science Review 78 (1984): 372–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56. Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

57. Froelich, Norman, Oppenheimer, Joseph A., and Eavey, Cheryl L., “Laboratory Results on Rawls' Distributive Justice,” British Journal of Political Science 17 (1987): 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. Scott, James C., The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976)Google Scholar.

59. Popkin, Samuel L., The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979)Google Scholar.

60. Main, Anti-Federalists.

61. Mansbridge, Jane J., Why We Lost the ERA (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986)Google Scholar.