John Dewey and Reflection on Negative Campaigning
by Leyla Abbasi
When Tim Walz first dubbed Donald Trump and his running mate JD Vance “weird” and it caught on with voters, Democrats dropped their old line of attack against Donald Trump as being an “existential threat to democracy” like a hot potato. Excitedly, they chimed into the chorus of pointing out what is weird about Donald Trump: his social behavior, his policy proposals, even his lines of attack against Kamala Harris. Overall, these tactics seem to be reminiscent of the other side of the political aisle, where Donald Trump has proven to be first in line to personally attack his opponents, having a fondness for crude and infantile nicknames, such as “Kamabla” or “Tampon Tim”.

John Dewey (1859–1952)
If he were still alive, the American philosopher John Dewey would be appalled at the status quo of 21st-century campaign rhetoric in US elections. In his 1939 essay “Creative Democracy—The Task Before Us,” he wrote, “Intolerance, abuse, calling of names because of differences of opinion about […] politics […is] treason to the democratic way of life” (LW 14: 227). This quote got me thinking about whether Dewey’s work might yield some reflections on negative campaigning. Instead of specific insights, I found a method of how to approach the subject. In his 1910 book How We Think, Dewey tackles the question of what we understand by ‘thought’. He distinguishes four distinct modes of thinking: (1) stream of consciousness, (2) imagination, (3) belief, and (4) reflection. What sets reflection apart from the other modes is its pursuit of knowledge grounded in verifiable evidence. In contrast, stream of consciousness is simply a “random coursing of things through the mind,” imagination includes “a note of invention” aiming at the production of a good story that ignites people’s emotions, and beliefs rely on judgments made by others that we attain through tradition, instruction, or imitation (MW6: 183).
To better understand negative campaigning, I will apply Dewey’s method of reflection which he describes in “five logically distinct steps”: (i) experiencing a difficulty, (ii) pinpointing and defining the problem, (iii) developing suggestions for possible explanations, (iv) exploring the implications of the developed idea or hypothesis, and (v) testing the hypothesis through observation and experiment (MW 6: 236–37). So, in this essay, I invite you to come along on a Deweyan reflection. On each step of the way, I’ll first outline Dewey’s framework before relating it to negative campaigning.
Experiencing and Defining the Problem
The first two steps in the process of reflection – experiencing a difficulty and defining the problem – often fuse into one. When looking through the lens of a camera, the image may be blurry at first, revealing a flurry of colors and shapes that lack contrast and clear contours. It takes a moment for the lens to focus and create a sharp picture. Similarly, in our daily lives we often stumble over experiences that create a sense of perplexity. At first, we might only perceive the vague feeling of an “undefined uneasiness,” an “emotional disturbance,” or a “shock” – something we find “disconcerting” (MW 6: 237–38). It takes some time and observation “to define the character of the difficulty” (MW 6: 238). According to Dewey, this step of sharpening the lens “to bring to light just what […] the trouble” is, distinguishes critical reflection from uncontrolled thought (MW 6: 238). While uncontrolled thinking gets ahead of itself by jumping to conclusions, the “essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment; and the essence of this suspense is inquiry to determine the nature of the problem before proceeding to attempts at its solution” (MW 6: 238). Hence, we must first articulate the problem or question which serves both as a guide and guardrail in reflection. As Dewey writes, a “question well put is half answered” (MW 6: 253).
The experience that prompted this blog post was quite ordinary: I had run out of episodes from my usual political podcasts and, in search of something new, stumbled upon The Rachel Maddow Show from MSNBC. What I encountered left me frustrated. The host’s commentary on how weird Trump’s behavior had gotten – now kicking his own supporters off the campaign stage – felt more like petty gossip than meaningful political analysis. The host started the podcast by commenting on a Trump rally in Glendale, AZ in late August. When Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake went over her allotted time, she was urged to get off the stage three times, culminating in the message “please get off stage, Trump waiting.” At the same rally, Justin Harris, the president of the Arizona Police Association, announced the union’s endorsement for Donald Trump. Ten minutes into his endorsement speech, Trump leaned in and told him, “You gotta go now.” I grew annoyed, feeling that my time had been wasted on content that didn’t contribute to my understanding of the ongoing election. It seemed to assume that the audience would be captivated by trivialities rather than substantive political discourse.
Although I never returned to The Rachel Maddow Show, I stayed tuned into the election process that is ripe with criticism of both candidates, leading me to wonder: If it wasn’t negative messaging itself, but rather the trivial nature of the criticism that drove me away, isn’t it plausible that there is negative messaging that engages voters? This experience raised a central question which is the linchpin of this inquiry: When is negative campaigning effective? And by effective, I mean two things: Firstly, when does it influence voters’ perception of a candidate? Secondly, when does it motivate voters to turn out on election day?
Inference – The Forming of Ideas and Suggestion of Possible Explanations
In the process of reflection, as Dewey conceptualizes it, inference is the step where ideas are formed and tentative explanations are proposed. Now, where do suggestions for possible explanations come from? Dewey contends that inference involves a speculative leap because we are moving from “what is present,” facts that we have observed in experience, to “something absent,” the explanation we are seeking (MW 6: 239). In consequence, any suggestion we come up with “cannot be absolutely warranted in advance” (MW 6: 239); suggestions “that seem plausible at first sight are often found unfit or even absurd when their full consequences are traced out” and in turn, suggestions that seem “remote and wild” at first may turn out to be “apt and fruitful” (MW 6: 240). Dewey thus urges to accept a suggestion only as “a working hypothesis, as something to guide investigation and bring to light new facts, not as a final conclusion” (MW 6: 244). Alright Dewey – dear readers, bear with me, and let’s leap!
Not so quickly! Before attempting to answer the question when negative campaigning is useful, it is imperative to clarify what negative campaigning is. At this point, I’ll borrow from the political science literature that offers various conceptualizations of negativity and negative campaigning. While some authors argue that “negativity is any criticism levelled by one candidate against another during a campaign” (Greer 2006: 23), others caution to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate attacks (Jamieson et al. 2000: 46). A very nuanced perspective on negative campaigning is advanced by Fridkin and Kenney’s ‘tolerance and tactics theory.’
To better understand the effectivity and impact of negative campaigning, the authors propose to consider two important components: (1) the tactics a campaign employs regarding the type of negative messages it releases, (2) voters’ tolerance for negativity. First, the authors argue that negative messages can be categorized along two dimensions: (I) the relevance of the content, and (II) the civility of the tone (Fridkin/Kenney 2019: 11). Relevant messages focus on a candidate’s activities and character traits that are important to the political process, e.g., their policy positions, voting record, or experience in politics. In contrast, irrelevant messages revolve around aspects that are not related to a candidate’s competency to govern, e.g., physical traits or apolitical aspects of their private life (Fridkin/Kenney 2019: 11). In terms of tone, negative messages range “along a continuum from nasty and harsh to more even-tempered and courteous” (Fridkin/Kenney 2019: 12). Second, voters differ in their tolerance for negative campaign rhetoric. While some are unfazed by it or even enjoy jabs at their candidate’s political opponent, others find such attacks to be inappropriate and draining. The authors found, for instance, that women, older Americans, and Democrats tend to be less tolerant of political uncivility than men, younger Americans, and Republicans, respectively (Fridkin/Kenney 2019: 14). In summary, the tolerance and tactics theory understands negative campaigning as a strategy to disseminate negative messages about a candidate’s political opponent. The impact of these negative messages depends on the relevance of their content, the civility of their tone, as well as voters’ tolerance for negativity.
Now that we’ve established an understanding of negative campaigning, we can return to the initial question. I’ll indulge into a philosophical quirk here – instead of answering the question of when negative campaigning is useful, I’ll first seek to understand when it is not. As Dewey says, “thinking is about binding together facts or deeds otherwise isolated” (MW 6: 242). So, I’ll try to build a case by connecting Dewey’s notion of deliberation with the tactics Kamala Harris and Donald Trump employed during their presidential debate. Alright, we’re leaping!

Image of the combative atmosphere between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump during the presidential debate. Created by Setvin, published on deviantart.com.
Although reflection and deliberation are not synonymous in Dewey’s work, they are related. While reflection refers to a broader framework of critical thinking, deliberation applies reflective processes to practical decision-making. As in reflection, deliberation is triggered by a problem, “a state of perplexity, hesitation, doubt” (MW 6: 188). So, before Kamala Harris and Donald Trump faced off in the presidential debate on September 10th, they (and their campaign teams) were both confronted with the same difficulty: the prospect of debating a political opponent they had never met before. Deliberation on how to handle this predicament, then, consists of a thought experiment, or as Dewey puts it “a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action” (MW 14: 132). In this case, the competing lines of action were different rhetorical strategies to be employed, such as issue framing, personal attacks, emotional appeal, establishing credibility, appealing to liberal and conservative presumptions, etc. Granted, in a debate not every response can be planned ahead of time but it is fathomable that the presidential candidates (or at least one of them) decided on a general strategy before the debate. Indeed, the whole point of the thought experiment is to test out each strategy to see where it would lead and whether the expected outcome would be desirable. Now the interesting part is this: Dewey calls a choice reasonable when it balances conflicting tendencies, here rhetorical strategies, by integrating elements of them into a unified path to be followed. In contrast, he calls a choice unreasonable if there is one impulse, or in this case strategy, that overrides and dominates all the others, leaving no room for the consideration of other possibilities (MW 14: 134–35). During the presidential debate, the majority of statements – both by Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – consisted in attacks upon their opponent. Only a small sliver of statements focused on policy proposals. While Harris aimed to divert Trump from policy debates by triggering his personal grievances, e.g., supporters leaving his rallies early, Trump’s attacks on Harris almost seemed compulsive. By connecting their rhetorical strategies to Dewey’s notion of deliberation, a hypothesis emerges: When negative messaging overrides all other strategies and becomes a reflex, it is unreasonable. Dewey’s concept of deliberation suggests that negativity must be integrated with some other element to be productive. We’ll delve into what that other element could be in the next phase. As mentioned before, this suggestion is a speculative leap that serves as a guide in further investigation – not as a final conclusion. So, if you’re skeptical of this suggestion, you’re proceeding just as Dewey would advise.
Reasoning – Exploration of the Hypothesis’ Implications
At the fourth stage of the reflective process, “reasoning,” Dewey aims to delve deeper into the previously formed idea or hypothesis by exploring and elaborating on its implications. “[S]o reasoning sets out from an idea” and proceeds by tracing its consequences (MW 6: 239). Again, Dewey emphasizes that the “essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment,” thus cautioning against jumping to conclusions (MW 6: 238). But what does it mean to suspend judgment during inquiry? Two things come to mind: First, searching for potential explanations involves a certain unease about not knowing the answer – a state we often try to escape as quickly as possible by clinging to something we accept as certain. Consequently, not coming to a premature conclusion requires the willingness to endure the uncomfortable state of uncertainty, of leaning into it rather than trying to flee it. Second, reasoning cannot simply be an act of conjuring arguments out of thin air. Instead, Dewey urges us to look for “further evidence” to either support or refute the idea or hypothesis generated through inference (MW 6: 239). According to Dewey, there is an interaction, a cyclical relation between reasoning and experimental observation: experimentation emerges out of hypotheses that have been crafted through reasoning and in turn, “[r]easoning requires some experimental observation to confirm” or disprove it (MW 6: 241). Briefly, reasoning guides experimentation and experimentation refines reasoning. This way, the speculative leap taken during inference is anchored in observable facts. The task to pursue now is to trace the implications of the idea and substantiate it with some sort of evidence.
The generated hypothesis purports that negative campaigning is unreasonable if it overrides all other campaign strategies. Conversely, it may be reasonable if it is brought into unison with another strategy. To figure out what that other strategy could be, we may turn to the “experimental observation” of Fridkin and Kenney’s tolerance and tactics theory: When analyzing the effects of negative campaigning, the authors found that whether voters change their assessment of a candidate or turn out to vote depends first and foremost on the relevance of the content. Interestingly, negative messages that focus on relevant issues and are delivered in an uncivil tone are most effective in lowering voters’ assessment of the attacked candidate. This is the case because harsh attacks are most likely to be noticed by voters and yet, the relevant criticism, e.g., of a candidate’s voting record on a specific issue, provides important information to voters about the electoral risks of supporting that candidate (Fridkin/Kenney 2019: 148). So, an uncivil tone can be effective in reaching voters with a message that changes their perception of a candidate if the content is relevant. Furthermore, relevant negative messages delivered in a civil tone have the most potential to mobilize voters to turn out because the even-tempered tone nudges voters to fulfill their civic duty of voting (Fridkin/Kenney 2019: 149). In contrast, negative messages that revolve around politically irrelevant topics, e.g., who is better at golf, “are unlikely to influence voters’ impressions of candidates” – no matter whether they are delivered in a nasty or courteous manner (Fridkin/Kenney 2019: 151). However, nasty attacks centered on irrelevant topics, which is often referred to as mudslinging, lowers voter turnout. Voters become increasingly disaffected with democratic politics because mudslinging “tends to reduce feelings of political efficacy, trust in government, and perhaps even satisfaction with government itself” (Lau et al. 2007: 1184).
There is an important caveat, though: Whether voters are affected in the above-described ways depends significantly on their tolerance for negativity. While voters with high tolerance for negativity are only minimally influenced, it is especially voters with low tolerance for negativity who are affected in the described ways. Thus, negative campaigning impacts voters averse to negativity much more than those who are more tolerant of negativity.
Overall, the tolerance and tactics theory suggests that negative messaging can be effective, and thus useful, when it focuses on relevant contents.
Testing the Hypothesis Through Observation and Experiment
The final step of the reflective process involves testing the hypothesis or idea through observation and experiment. If evidence supports the idea, we are compelled to accept it. However, should observation and experiment yield contradicting evidence, the process of reflection starts over from the beginning. In this sense, observation comes full circle: In the beginning of the reflective process, observation helps to determine the nature of the problem and in the end, observation allows to test the validity of the conclusion (MW 6: 241). It should be noted that the verification of a hypothesis is an ongoing process, not a definite endpoint. A conclusion holds only until contrary evidence emerges, allowing for revision. This creates a cyclical movement in which the end of one reflective process may give rise to the beginning of another. Moreover, Dewey speaks of a double movement in reflection involving both induction and deduction: “inductive discovery” moves from “the given partial and confused data” toward forming a comprehensive hypothesis (MW 6: 242). “Deductive proof” then moves from this hypothesis back to the facts to confirm, refute, or modify it (MW 6: 244). Hence, this last step requires returning to “the vicissitudes of life” (MW 10: 46), i.e., the final weeks of the 2024 election.
Although it would be reasonable for Harris and Trump to focus negative messaging on relevant topics, they may not follow this strategy. As Dewey puts it, the “data at hand cannot supply the solution; they can only suggest it” (MW 6: 190). Since it is out of our hands to experiment with the suggestion, we must resort to observing the candidate’s tactics during the final weeks of the 2024 election – virtually a live laboratory. Several aspects are worth paying attention to. First, we can analyze negative messages by both campaigns with regards to the relevance of their content. Relevant messages in a civil tone can boost voter turnout, while uncivil ones may shape perceptions of the attacked candidate. In contrast, mudslinging, irrelevant, and uncivil messages could discourage voters from turning out. These effects are expected to be strongest in voters with low levels of tolerance for negativity. Second, it may be revealing to reflect upon one’s own level of tolerance for negativity. Understanding how one reacts to negativity, may prove helpful to counteract its effects. Voters aware of their aversion to negativity and the risk of demobilization, may choose to turn out regardless. Maybe this is just wishful thinking, though. Finally, after the election it may be possible to examine how the campaign strategies both Harris and Trump employed affected voters’ decision who to vote for or whether to turn out at all.
Additionally, several trends in negative campaigning may be indicative of what to expect during the final weeks of the campaign. First, candidates ahead in the polls tend to focus on issues, while candidates who are trailing behind their opponents tend to attack (Nai 2020: 449). Currently, neither candidate can establish a clear lead over the other in the critical swing states. Therefore, we can expect both Harris and Trump to continue attacking one another. Second, “extremism and ideological difference” foster negativity (Nai 2020: 449). Especially candidates on the right and more extreme candidates tend to go negative – Trump is a prime example of this. Third, a logic of attack reciprocity and retaliation further drives negativity – when one candidate attacks, the other retaliates. The reasons are unclear, but it’s likely that candidates want to avoid looking weak by not responding or seize an opponent’s attack as a justified opportunity to attack without risking backlash. Naturally, it’s possible that none of what I’ve outlined occurs, which would yield its own valuable insights.
About the Author
Leyla Abbasi is a doctoral student at the Heidelberg Center for American Studies under the supervision of Magnus Schlette. She received her Staatsexamen in mathematics, French, and philosophy from the University of Heidelberg, studying abroad in Grenoble, France, and Portland, OR. Her Ph.D. thesis explores the evolving landscape of public philosophy and its contemporary relevance from the perspective of John Dewey’s writings.
You can contact her via email: labbasi@hca.uni-heidelberg.de.
References
Bull, Peter, and Karolis Miskinis. 2015. “Whipping It Up! An Analysis of Audience Responses to Political Rhetoric in Speeches From the 2012 American Presidential Elections.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34 (5): 521–38.
Dewey, John. 1978. How We Think. In John Dewey. The Middle Works, 1899-1924, 6: 1910–1911, edited by Jo Ann Boydston, 177–356. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
———. 1980. “The Need for a Recovery in Philosophy.” In John Dewey. The Middle Works, 1899-1924, 10: 1916–1917, edited by Jo Ann Boydston, 3–48. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
———. 1983. “Human Nature and Conduct.” In John Dewey. The Middle Works, 1899-1924, 14: 1922, edited by Jo Ann Boydston, 1–230. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
———. 1988. “Creative Democracy – The Task Before Us.” In John Dewey. The Later Works, 1925-1953, 14: 1939–1941, edited by Jo Ann Boydston, 224–30. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Fridkin, Kim, and Patrick Kenney. 2019. Taking Aim at Attack Advertising: Understanding the Impact of Negative Campaigning in U. S. Senate Races. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geer, John Gray. 2006. In Defense of Degativity. Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Studies in Communication, Media, and Public Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gross, Justin H., and Kaylee T. Johnson. 2016. “Twitter Taunts and Tirades: Negative Campaigning in the Age of Trump.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (04): 748–54.
Haselmayer, Martin. 2019. “Negative Campaigning and Its Consequences: A Review and a Look Ahead.” French Politics 17 (3): 355–72.
Jamieson, K.H., P. Waldman, and S. Sherr. 2000. “Eliminate the Negative? Categories of Analysis for Political Advertisement.” In Crowded Airwaves: Campaign Advertising in Elections, edited by James A. Thurber, Candice J. Nelson, and David A. Dulio, 44–64. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, and Ivy Brown Rovner. 2007. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” The Journal of Politics 69 (4): 1176–1209.
Liddell, James. 2024. “Donald Trump’s Nine Weirdest Nicknames for His Political Rivals, from Wacky Jacky to Tampon Tim.” The Independent. September 28th, 2024. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-nicknames-harris-biden-walz-b2616334.html.
Nai, Alessandro. 2020. “Going Negative, Worldwide: Towards a General Understanding of Determinants and Targets of Negative Campaigning.” Government and Opposition 55 (3): 430–55.
Pequeño, Antonio. n.d. “Trump And Biden Argue Over Golf Handicap In Debate Tangent.” Forbes. Accessed October 22nd, 2024. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/06/27/trump-and-biden-argue-over-golf-handicap-in-debate-tangent/.
Rodgers, Carol. 2002. “Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking.” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 104 (4): 842–66.
Stokols, Eli, and Elena Schneider. 2024. “How Trump and Vance Went from a ‘Threat to Democracy’ to ‘Weird.’” POLITICO. July 26th, 2024. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/26/trump-vance-weird-00171470.
Vaish, Amrisha, Tobias Grossmann, and Amanda Woodward. 2008. “Not All Emotions Are Created Equal: The Negativity Bias in Social-Emotional Development.” Psychological Bulletin 134 (3): 383–403.
Images
Underwood & Underwood. Portrait of philosopher John Dewey. Wikipedia, United States Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs division, public commons, digital ID cph.3a51565. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=43191685 [Accessed on October 22nd, 2024].
Setvin. Trashware Art Kamala Trump Debate Boxing Vector 03. Deviantart.com, August 28th, 2024, CC by 3.0. https://www.deviantart.com/setvin/art/Trashware-Art-Kamala-Trump-Debate-Boxing-Vector-03-1079644678 [Accessed on October 22nd, 2024].
Other Sources
Podcast: Maddow, Rachel. “Don’t sleep on what is happening in the states.” The Rachel Maddow Show. August 27th 2024. 44 min 18 sec. https://the-rachel-maddow-show.simplecast.com/episodes/maddow-dont-sleep-on-what-is-happening-in-the-states [Accessed on October 22nd 2024].
Post on X: @RubenGallego. “MAGA Republicans finally catching up to the rest of Arizona.
@KariLake.” X, August 24th, 2024, 5:37 AM. Accessed on October 13th, 2024. https://x.com/RubenGallego/status/1827188357312528778.
YouTube video: Forbes Breaking News. “Donald Trump Receives Endorsement From The Arizona Police Association During A Rally In Glendale.” YouTube, August 25th, 2024. Accessed on October 13th, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Inu03Ph0Y.
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Leyla Abbasi (October 23, 2024). John Dewey and Reflection on Negative Campaigning. HCA Graduate Blog. Retrieved November 9, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/12jyo
