Mudslingers: The Top 25 Negative Political Campaigns of All Time, Countdown from No. 25 to No. 1

by Kerwin Swint

Americans have a love-hate relationship with negative campaigning, claiming to despise it and ranting about how it turns off the electorate, while at the same time paying an increasing amount of attention to negative ads and tactics during ever-lengthening campaign seasons. Swint gathers the most compelling of these campaigns from the two Golden Ages of negative campaigning―1864 to 1892 and 1988 to the present―in addition to some that fall outside those demarcations, and ranks them in descending order, from No. 25 to No. 1. Mudslingers covers presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial, and mayoral races and chronicles the dirtiest, most low-down campaign tactics of all time.

The list includes the presidential campaign of 1800, when the disputed outcome of the race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had to be decided by the House of Representatives, and the election of 2004, in which George W. Bush beat John Kerry after one of the nastiest showdowns on record. The first round of negative campaigning in American history was driven by post-Civil War politics, the end of Reconstruction, an increasingly corrupt federal government, and a rabid partisan press. The current Golden Age of mudslinging and dirty politics is driven by huge increases in campaign spending, television advertising, decreased civility in public life, and a muckraking mass media. These fascinating stories from the annals of negative campaigning will entertain as well as educate, reminding us, the next time we are tempted to decry the current climate, that it was (almost) ever thus.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction

254 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Dr. Kerwin Swint is an author, speaker, and professor of politics at Kennesaw State University in Atlanta. Specializing in Campaigns and Elections and Mass Media, he or his work has appeared in a number of national and international media, including CNN, FOX News, the BBC, the ABC program The View, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, NPR, The Toronto Star, The Daily Mail (UK), National Journal, Mental Floss, Publisher's Weekly, Salon, Slate, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and numerous other media.

Reviews

[Geoffrey Kelley]

This is a fun book to read, and is a reminder that the politics of division is not a new invention, and the playing of the race card in American politics is as old as the hills. It is not a Trumpian invention! Kerwin Swint takes us from the hotly contested 1800 presidential election, where Thomas Jefferson defeated incumbent John Adams ( and, indirectly, his running mate Aaron Burr, who had the same number of a Electoral a College votes because there was no distinction then between presidential and vice-presidential electors) to the Bush-Kerry campaign in 2004. Included are several Senate, gubernatorial and mayoralty races. Notorious figures, from David Duke to Jesse Helms to George Wallace are featured. Two nasty New Jersey US Senate races are included, and the classic Richard Nixon race versus “ The Pink Lady” ( Helen Gahagan Douglas). And if you like personal scandal, the 1884 presidential race between Grover Cleveland and James G. Blaine are right up your alley. The book also sheds light on the role played by the media. The current CNN vs Fox News is just further proof that “ there is nothing new under the sun”, and that media wars are often part and parcel with political battles.

[Jake]

“Voters have come to expect dirty politics and negative ads…” reads a line from the back of Professor Kerwin Swint’s Mudslingers: The Twenty-Five Dirtiest Political Campaigns of All Time. I wonder if it would be more appropriate to say that voters have come to settle for negative campaigning. Such injurious behavior seems to constitute not the underbelly, but rather the bareback of American politics. At any rate, Dr. Swint provides a stimulating highlight reel of sorts with Mudslingers. Whatever spin you take, dirtiness and negativity have been status quo since the founding fathers started bitterly founding alongside each other.

As it turns out, our nation almost foundered while John Adams and Thomas Jefferson fought it out for the presidency. The vicious back and forth of their campaigns culminated in a disputed election. Ever since, the political process has played out in vitriolic fashion. For example, according to Swint the last explicitly racial campaign was just a few decades ago. And implicitly racial campaigning? Turn on your TV.

Mudslingers is not deep scholarship. Doing justice to 25 different campaigns in less than 300 pages takes a lot of summarizing. The upside of this approach is that it results in an accessible and informative work that political laypersons like me can sink our teeth into. Furthermore, the author does not limit himself to presidential campaigns. Campaigns for senate, governor and mayor are explored, including a chapter dedicated to a primary instead of a general election. This gives the reader a chance to peer inside political machines while also getting a palatable dose of American history.

This book isn’t a veritable masterpiece of scholarship. The content is sometimes cursory and in at least one case outright underdeveloped. Swint asserts that the 1934 gubernatorial race for California actually brought the state to the brink of civil war. But his physical evidence for this nearly-martial crisis is lacking. However, by and large I found myself broadening my perspective via a great deal of compelling material. So I do recommend this book. And if you are in the market for well-informed political ruminations, consider looking up @KerwinSwint the next time you are on Twitter.

[David Brzezinski]

In this election year, I live in a state where two candidates are attacking each other based how each handled their finances. At times, the political ads look pretty nasty.

Reading this book, I realize that this race is no where near as brutal as the races Swint covers.

Mudslingers looks at the dirty side of American politics. The personal attacks, the political ads, the underhanded deals, just about everything you could think of (but really should not) happens in this book. Swint covers all sorts of political races, from presidential right down to mayoral. And writing this as a list allows Swint to build to an ultimate climax of campaign brutality.

This book is not for everyone, but I do recommend this read for anyone who looks at today's political attack ads and wonders if they could get any worse. Mudslingers proves it can get a lot worse.

[Jennifer]

The thing about lists (or books featuring lists) is that it's subjective. No person's list is going to be the same as another person's. However, I think Kerwin Swint does a fine job of highlighting the 25 dirtiest political campaigns. All of these deserved to be included. It's a fascinating look into how low people can stoop to, all in the name of power (or, as they claimed, "for the good of the people"). Left me shaking my head - no wonder people say politics is a dirty game. There's a reason for that and this book shows part of that reason.

Definitely worth a read, however, if you are into history and/or politics.

[Jason]

A brief analysis of the author's picks for dirtiest political campaigns. Overall entertaining although short story of each of the 25 campaigns. A good read for history of political junkies.

[Amanda J]

I have to admit the title really drew me in, but the book didn't really deliver. Politics can be fascinating but this book was dry and uninteresting.

[Whitney Anderson]

Kerwin Swint is one of my favorite professors. I love his classes and his books.

[Linda]

This is a fascinating book! I learned so much about how politics are played and especially dirty politics. Very well written!

[Fred Klein]

A good summary of 25 negative campaigns/elections. If you read it, you will likely make it a goal not to be taken in by manipulative political advertising in the future.

[Linda]

It was informative

[Mike]

Cool countdown. Some negative campaigning works, some backfire. :)