Some things which at first appear to be 'dirty' are in fact a necessary part of Christian life. Disciplining children leaves some people with a 'dirty hands' feeling. In general Christians should check their feelings and impressions against Christian principles and scriptural examples. Political attack ads must also be examined in this deliberate biblical framework.

Character Matters:
The Bible does not speak explicitly about acceptable political advertising. Looking at just one example, the Bible does provide advice about what to consider when selecting Christian leaders (elders and deacons) in I Timothy 3. Paul asks the rhetorical question, "if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?" The principle here is that character matters. Leaders must be above reproach, their character and private life must be in order. A church leader's children must be in good order. Presumably the deacon's children will not be guiding the church, but Paul makes the connection that the deacon's family reflects his character, and hence his ability to guide the church. Someone could be an excellent teacher, highly intelligent and have incredible spiritual discretion - but this is not enough. Even though the requirements to serve as elders and deacons are different from those required of political leaders, the same principle applies - the private life and character of those in leadership are relevant.

Elsewhere the Bible makes clear that character matters, especially the character of leaders. Jesus warns us in Matthew 7:15 of "false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves," showing that inner-character, not just outward claims, are vitally important. Christians must take the character and private live of candidates for leadership taken into consideration. They should also apply this Biblical model for selecting leaders to politics. The character and private conduct of any politician should be an important factor in Christian's determination of that candidate's worthiness for office.

Honesty Matters:
Any evaluation of character must be undertaken within the bounds of honest inquiry. Christians are called not to lie or slander. This simple command can be extremely hard to live by, particularly in the expedient world of politics. Being intentionally deceitful, or untruthful is never acceptable. When trying to evaluate the moral value of political attack ads this consideration of honesty in criticism must be weighed against the need to evaluate the character of potential leaders.

Not all Attack Ads are Equal:
When people speak of "attack ads" they almost invariably refer to an ad which makes their preferred candidate look bad. Attack ads must be clearly categorized and distinguished before being morally evaluated.

Broadly speaking, all political ads fall into one of two categories. Positive ads and negative ads. All ads which portray a political candidate positively try to convince the viewer to vote for that candidate. Negative ads are the ads which try to persuade the audience to vote against a candidate (perhaps by voting for someone else). Negative ads in our two-party political system voting against one candidate is effectively a vote for the other candidate. For example, to not vote for Bush, even if you don't vote at all, is effectively a vote for Kerry. There are some ads that serve both purposes, making both a positive statement about one candidate and a corresponding negative claim about the opposing candidate.

Negative ads are extremely popular in today's political system. In 1996 a study of all political advertising showed that candidates aired more than five times as many negative ads as positive ones, according to the Wisconsin Advertising Project. Politicians love negative ads because they have proven to be more effective in winning elections. This places a larger burden on Christians to understand the relative merits of negative ads.

All negative advertisements can also be split into two groups: those ads that address specific issues and those ads that address the candidate's character. These categories often overlap, with the distinction hinging on how the ad appeals to the voter.

1. Negative Issue Ads:
When the NRA runs an 'attack ad' against a politician who supports gun control they appeal to the voter on the merits of the issue. Gun control is bad, so this candidate must be opposed.

2. Negative Character Ads:
"Character ads," come in many different flavors, but they all appeal to the electorate to vote on the basis of some part of the politician's character. Some advertisements accuse candidates of lying, such as the famous 1992 Patrick Buchanan ad which quoted then President George H.W. Bush saying, "read my lips, no new taxes." The commercial then catalogued the tax hikes Bush had signed into law. It closed with the powerful line, "Can we afford four more years of broken promises?" This ad addressed an issue, but the meat of the attack was against President George Bush's character.

President George W. Bush currently has several negative character ads attacking John Kerry for 'flip-flopping' on issues. The point of these ads is not so much that Kerry opposed funding troops in Iraq, for example, as much as pointing out that Kerry has changed his position multiple times - indicating indecisiveness in his character.

Can Christians Support Negative 'Attack' Ads?
With this understanding of what constitutes a "negative ad" or an "attack ad" Christians can see that there is nothing inherently offensive or immoral about these ads. Christians are called to care about issues and Christians are called to care about character in leaders. In so far as these ads are designed to heighten awareness about particular issues or expose a serious character flaw in a potential leader, they are justified. Negative "issue ads" are almost always morally acceptable.

There is no ethical distinction between providing positive information for one candidate, a "positive ad" and providing the corresponding negative information, "attack ad" for the other candidate. The information content is the same - only the context changes. Negative "character ads" are likewise merely the inverse of positive character ads. The content is the same, and it cannot be acceptable to show the presence of character in one candidate but unacceptable to show the lack of character in another candidate.

It may not seem like a nice thing to 'attack' a political candidate, but given the nature of leadership, negative ads and negative arguments are necessary. The 'dirty hands' feel to negative issue ads does not provide a defensible rejection of negative issue ads. Christians should know and educate others about a candidate's stance on abortion, for example. Because political candidates have chosen to run for office, they have consented to having their position on issues examined by all. Political candidates expect for their opponents to criticize their issues and their character.

However, not all negative ads are justified under the Biblical principles of examining character in leaders and knowing that issues matter. Christians are also prohibited from lying, deceiving and slandering. These facts are rather obvious, but in the political world the line between opposing an undesirable candidate fairly and unfairly can be dangerously thin.

Christians should be the first to condemn negative political ads that are deceitful or untruthful. The problem is that most negative political ads are not obviously untruthful. Most often these ads raise matters often politically charged judgment. This difficulty should not stop Christians from upholding their constant commitment to truth. Some additional examples will make this problematic issue more clear.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads
The ads run by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are a clear example of a difficult judgment call. The latest Swift Boat Vets ad shows that they understand the reasoning behind these character attacks. It ad asks, "why is this relevant?" and then answers, "because character and honesty matter, especially in a time of war." Everyone agrees that either John Kerry is lying about his service in Vietnam, or the Swift Boat Veterans are lying. Both sides make substantive arguments, but in the end it can only be left to hazy political judgment. If the Swift Vet ads are based on lies, as Kerry charges, then, from the Christian perspective, they would be an illegitimate attack. However, if Kerry is lying, as the Swift Vets charge, then Christians should find the ads perfectly than acceptable.

The "Daisy Ad"
In 1964 President Johnson's campaign ran one of the most famous political attack ads ever. This ad is a good example of a negative ad that is unacceptable because it is deliberately deceptive and dishonest. The "Daisy ad" features a little girl picking a daisy, set against a nuclear mushroom cloud. The strongly suggests that Johnson's opponent, Barry Goldwater, would launch a nuclear war, and explicitly says, "these are the stakes, to make a world in which all God's children can live, or to go into the darkness. Either we must love each other or we must die." Almost nobody will defend this as a truthful argument over the issues. In fact, the Johnson campaign almost immediately withdrew the advertisement, but subsequently enjoyed the negative press about Goldwater the ad created. It appears that Johnson didn't honestly believe that Goldwater would launch a nuclear war, but was merely making a fear-inspiring association to try and discredit the candidate.

The "Daisy Ad" does not truthfully raise an issue or aspect of character, and hence Christians should oppose this type of ad for being unethical. Even the Johnson campaign admitted that this ad was illegitimate, soon pulling it off the air. Christians should be wary of political advertisements drawing extreme conclusions without evidence to back them up. For example, if someone charged that Kerry would bring the second great depression or that Bush would cause World War III, these attacks, without extensive evidence and documentation, would be unacceptable.

The "Bush = Hitler Ad"
More recently, an online advocacy group, MoveOn.org held a contest for independently produced ads criticizing President Bush. Almost all of these ads fall into the unclear realm of political judgment. However, two ads explicitly compared President Bush to dictator Adolph Hitler. One ad showed Hitler in salute, and then morphs to President Bush raising his hand at his inauguration. In the background you hear "Sig Heil! Sig Heil!" during both images.

This sort of advertisement again makes no clear, explicit issue argument. It does, however, make a clear 'negative character ad' argument that Bush is an American Hitler. The association of Bush with Hitler, however, can scarcely be defended as truthful and honest. Perhaps a handful of the most extreme political partisans honestly think that Bush is like Hitler. This association of Bush with Hitler appears not only offensive, but slanderous. Such negative advertisements cannot be justified for Christians as either a legitimate political issue or honest concern about character. Some would argue that this is merely a type of character judgment, but most would see that the justifications for equating Bush with Hitler are so illogical and unfounded that they can only be called what they are - slander. Ads that associate a candidate with some evil, without any solid support, are not legitimate attacks. It should be noted that criticizing a candidate for supporting or failing to support an issue is distinct from this sort of slanderous association.

Conclusion:
Christians should not only expect negative attacks in politics, they should recognize the important role they have in the political debate of examining political issues and the character of candidates. The scriptures show how character and private lives are important concerns for leadership. Negative, so called, 'attack ads' may not seem nice, but they are absolutely essential so voters can thoroughly examine potential leaders.

Many politicians and media commentators deem all 'attack ads' offensive and 'dirty.' No solid ethical argument supports these claims. What most call "attack ads" are more appropriately though of as "informative ads." There is no ethical difference between providing information in favor of one candidate and providing information against a candidate. When the NRA runs an ad pointing out that some candidate opposes gun rights, there is nothing unethical with providing voters with information on the issues. Christians who attack candidates by pointing out their stance in favor of abortion are not engaging in unethical or 'dirty' political tactics. Issues are critical to the political selection process.

Honesty and a commitment to the truth in all spheres of life should always inform Christian decisions in politics. Attack ads are no different. While truth and honesty are required, Christians should not shy away from informing the public about critical issues and important considerations of character in our future leaders. Perhaps most attack ads are not so negative after all.