Negative Campaigning ∙∙

Negative Campaigning ∙∙

 18 “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’

 19 “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” – Matthew 11:18-19

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

The History of Negative Campaigning

Negative campaigning is not a modern invention; it goes back millennia. The ancient Romans, known for their cunning and strategic thinking, had a saying: “Throw plenty of dirt, and some of it will be sure to stick.” By the late 1800s, this practice of character attacks evolved into what we now call “mudslinging,” a term that has endured to this day.

Quintus Tullius Cicero’s Political Playbook

In 64 BC, Quintus Tullius Cicero, the younger brother of the renowned Roman orator Marcus Cicero, wrote “How to Win an Election.” In this guide, he gave advice on how to influence the Roman crowds. He stated, “Finally, as regards the Roman masses, be sure to put on a good show. Dignified, yes, but full of the color and spectacle that appeals so much to crowds. It also wouldn’t hurt to remind them of what scoundrels your opponents are and to smear these men at every opportunity with the crimes, sexual scandals, and corruption they have brought on themselves.”

This early example of political strategy underscores the timelessness of negative campaigning.

The Dirtiest Presidential Campaign in U.S. History

The 1828 presidential campaign between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams is often considered one of the dirtiest in American history. It was filled with character assassinations, name-calling, slurs, rumors, and baseless accusations, eerily similar to the attack ads seen in modern politics.

Some of the most outrageous claims included allegations that Andrew Jackson was guilty of murder, polygamy, and adultery. Meanwhile, John Quincy Adams was accused of being a pimp during his diplomatic tenure in Russia. These attacks were spread through handbills and partisan newspapers, focusing more on personal slander than on political platforms.

Modern Political Parallels

Although delivery methods in political campaigns have changed significantly with the advent of digital media, the prevalence of venomous rhetoric and personal attacks remains as intense as ever. Social media platforms, in particular, have amplified the reach and speed of these negative tactics, turning mudslinging into a common feature of modern political discourse.

Platforms like X, Facebook, and Instagram enable candidates to share provocative messages instantly, often skipping traditional journalistic checks. This rapid communication can create a frenzy, where rumors and attacks spread quickly before they can be fact-checked or debunked. Additionally, the anonymity some users enjoy can encourage individuals to post more vicious comments without fear of accountability, fostering an environment of hostility and division among voters.

Biblical Examples of Mudslinging

The Scriptures also provide examples of mudslinging and name-calling, particularly in the context of opposition to John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Matthew 11:18-19: “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’”

During the time of John the Baptist and Jesus, religious leaders conducted their own form of opposition research. They pieced together a few facts to create convincing yet false character assassinations, name-calling, slurs, and false narratives aimed at discrediting their opponents.

• John the Baptist: Known for his austere lifestyle, John lived as a hermit in the desert, preaching a message of repentance, warning of impending doom and judgment. His unconventional behavior led to accusations that he was demon-possessed and mentally unstable.
• Jesus Christ: In stark contrast to John, Jesus was deeply involved in the lives of others. He attended social gatherings, ate freely, and drank wine. He defied the cultural and religious norms of His time by associating with tax collectors and sinners, people despised by the religious elite. These actions led to accusations that He was a glutton and a drunkard, lacking discretion and understanding.

REFLECT & PRAY

1 John 4:1: “Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world.”

Father, help me to stand firm in Your truth and not be deceived by the lies and slander that are repeatedly disseminated, even if they support my beliefs. May I always seek wisdom and discernment through Your Word, remaining steadfast in my faith.  

INSIGHT

Heated Confrontation Between Jesus and Religious Leaders

The Gospels describe a tense and hostile exchange between Jesus Christ and certain religious leaders, characterized by severe accusations and name-calling. This confrontation in John 8 highlights the deep animosity toward Jesus and the lengths to which His opponents went to undermine His credibility.

Questioning Jesus’ Legitimacy

From the very beginning of His life, the legitimacy of Jesus’ birth and parentage was a target of slander. The miraculous and supernatural nature of His birth was met with skepticism and malicious rumors. In John 8, Jesus was accused of being illegitimate. The insinuations were cruel and cutting: Was Mary pregnant before her marriage to Joseph? Was Joseph even His father?

One of the most cutting and vile rumors suggested that Jesus was the child of a Roman soldier named Pantera. These accusations were not only personal but deeply offensive. Jesus was labeled as a half-breed, a Samaritan, a mix of Gentile and Jew, and even accused of being demon-possessed (Mark 3:22-30).  The religious leaders used these slurs to undermine His authority and message.

Jesus’ Bold Response

In response to their attacks, Jesus did not shy away from confrontation. He turned the accusations back on His opponents, denouncing their spiritual heritage.

In John 8:41, Jesus censures the religious leaders, “‘You are doing the deeds of your father.’ The religious leaders retorted, ‘We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.’” In response, Jesus condemns them for their true spiritual parentage: John 8:44: “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

The Climax of the Confrontation

The tension peaked when Jesus made extraordinary claims, declaring that Abraham, the revered patriarch, rejoiced to see His day.: John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

This statement baffled the religious leaders, who responded with incredulity in:
John 8:57: “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

Jesus then made the most profound and controversial claim of all: John 8:58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.”

By using the phrase “I AM,” Jesus invoked the divine name of God as revealed in Exodus 3:14, identifying Himself as God in the flesh. This declaration enraged the religious leaders, who viewed it as blasphemy. They immediately sought to stone Him, but Jesus evaded their attempt.

Evidence of Truth

In the midst of these accusations and counterclaims, Jesus pointed to the evidence of His works as proof of His divine authority: John 10:38: “If I do His work, believe in the evidence of the miraculous works I have done, even if you don’t believe Me.”

Jesus emphasized that His actions, miracles, teachings, and fulfillment of prophecy validated His claims. While opinions about Him varied, the truth of His identity was supported by undeniable evidence.

The Nature of Truth

The confrontation between Jesus and the religious leaders highlights a timeless principle: truth is not subjective. Though not verified, the following credo is attributed to U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own Truth.” While individuals may hold differing opinions, the truth remains constant and unchanging. As Adolf Hitler once said, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” This underscores the importance of discerning truth from falsehood, especially in matters of eternal significance.

The Bible encourages us to exercise discernment and not be swayed by falsehoods, even if they align with our personal beliefs. Lies, no matter how often they are repeated, should always be measured against the truth of God’s Word.

In the case of Jesus Christ, His words, actions, and the fulfillment of prophecy provide evidence for the truth He proclaimed.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯11-8-2

© Dr. H 2025