As the political season draws to its climax, the steady drumbeat of negative ads from our politicians increases in volume and annoyance value. While we haven’t yet seen anything as egregious as Jesse Helms’ notorious race-baiting "white hands" ad ("You needed that job....but they had to give it to a minority"), or Jim Hunt’s ad linking Jesse to death squads in El Salvador, the race ain’t over yet.

There were some glimmers that things might be different this year than in previous ones. Bowles started with some rather amusing ads poking gentle fun at his own incredible geekiness. But cute and self-deprecating doesn’t overcome a 4 to 1 deficit in the polls. So Bowles wasted no time in rolling out the dump trucks filled with mud and starting in a-slingin’. For her own part, alleged North Carolinian Elizabeth Dole was only too happy to get down and wallow right along with her opponent. It’s as if they shrugged their shoulders and went "hey, it’s North Carolina, it’s Jesse’s seat, we have to go negative. It’s like a law or something."

Bowles tries to link Dole to Enron baddie Ken Lay. Dole tries to hang Bill Clinton around Bowles’ neck. Bowles accuses Dole of being anti-family because she opposed the Family & Medical Leave Act while she was Secretary of Labor. Dole accuses Bowles’ "family business" of sending North Carolina textile jobs overseas. Meanwhile, North Carolina voters hunker down, cover their ears and pray for the whole thing to be over.

Of course, it’s not just a North Carolina phenomenon. So-called "attack ads" are as much a part of the American political landscape these days as flags and pictures of the candidate and family smiling so wide you’d think they’d all just taken big ol’ snorts of nitrous oxide. And they’re everywhere.

Perhaps the weirdest incident involving attack ads involved Montana Senate candidate Mike Taylor. Taylor actually dropped out of the race over an ad run by his opponent, Democrat Max Baucus (the fact that Taylor was getting his butt kicked might have also factored into his decision). The ads in question featured clips from a segment Taylor used to do on Denver TV to promote his "Michael Taylor School of Hair Design." While the ad is ostensibly an attack on Taylor’s misuse of federal student loan funds (ho-hum), the visuals show Taylor appearing to do something cosmetics-related to a male customer. Taylor charged that the ad made him look like a "homosexual hairdresser". I’ve seen the commercial, and I have to disagree. Most of the gay people I know dress WAY better than that. Dude, no one held a gun to your head and made you wear gold chains and an open necked shirt on camera. Confess your fashion sins, do your penance, and move on.

Anyway, Taylor dropped out, only to drop back in this past week. Which begs the question: even if Montanans might vote for a guy who looks like a homosexual hairdresser, will they vote for someone so thin-skinned that he lets a stupid ad drive him out of the race?

It’s gotten to the point where "60 MINUTES" producer Don Hewitt has advocated a complete ban on all television political ads. In a lecture in New York City last week, Hewitt claimed that "The First Amendment has never stopped anyone from refusing to broadcast or print obscenities, and I contend that political commercials are just that --obscenities -- and could be banned for that reason alone."

The National Association of Broadcasters, on the other hand, apparently actually likes attack ads. According to the trade magazine Daily Variety, broadcasters make a mint off them, almost $623 million in 2000. So it’s no wonder the NAB is particularly vociferous in challenging a new campaign finance law that would ban "issue ads" run by parties or special interest groups 60 days before the general election. Nothing like defending a principle that makes you money.

Don Hewitt’s opinion notwithstanding, that pesky old First Amendment does protect a politician’s right to say nasty things about his opponent. It’s an American tradition that goes back to the Founding Fathers. In the 1796 election, John Adams’ supporters circulated pamphlets calling Thomas Jefferson "an atheist, anarchist, demagogue, coward, mountebank, trickster and Francomaniac." (I’m not sure what a Francomaniac is. It sounds like someone who likes canned ravioli, but I doubt that’s what was intended. Anyway, it doesn’t sound good). In 1800, Alexander Hamilton published his own attack ads accusing Adams of ""vanity beyond bounds" and "jealousy capable of discoloring every subject." Hamilton’s negative campaigning, however, finally went to far when he ended up being challenged to a duel by another opponent, Aaron Burr. Burr shot Hamilton dead. Sort of makes our current political climate look a lot milder, doesn’t it?

So, with the Constitution, tradition, and money on their side, it seems that negative ads are like the weather: everyone complains, but no one does anything about it. Since dueling has fallen out of favor, there’s nothing restraining politicians from slanting events, taking things out of context, and making unfounded insinuations about their opponents. Nothing that is, except decency and good taste. And good luck finding a politician who’ll let those stand in the way of getting elected.

COPYRIGHT 2002 BY JERRY D. RHOADES, JR.