One can only hope that voters are able to see how some negative campaign tactics reveal far more about the ethics of the candidate making an accusation than they do about the character of the one being accused.

This is certainly the case with the recent attack by Senator George Allen on his Democratic opponent, James Webb. Allen's campaign has circulated sensational, graphic and sexually explicit excerpts from Webb's best-selling novels to make the argument that the passages expose character flaws in the candidate, especially negative attitudes toward women. But it is obvious that Allen's strategy is far more wide-reaching. He is trying to ignite a visceral and emotional public reaction against Webb's candidacy that he knows will be illogical, unjustified, and difficult to resist.

In court trials, producing such "evidence" is called "inflaming the passions of the jury." Judges will forbid it, because it is designed to provoke jury members to stop thinking rationally and to make decisions based on emotion alone. Campaigns, however, have no judge to stop tactics that intentionally distort voters' evaluations of candidates. Allen's last minute attack---unfair, misleading and completely without merit---could have a major impact on the race. What that impact is depends on whether voters see Allen's tactic for what it is.

The use of shocking passages cherry-picked from Webb's novelizations of his experiences and observations during combat shows that Allen understands how to use powerful trends in human nature to disrupt orderly decision-making. By linking the content of fictional passages written by Webb to Webb himself, Allen's tactic may trigger in some voters the psychological reaction known as cognitive dissonance. They will be unable to reconcile the negative connotations of the actions and descriptions in the excerpts a positive impression of the real person, Webb, who is associated with them. Their minds will resolve the dissonance by bringing the two disparate attitudes in line with each other, probably by lowering their opinion of Webb. This is an instinctive and subconscious reaction rather than a rational one, which is what makes Allen's tactic so insidious.

It is difficult to believe that any rational reader of Webb's novels would conclude that the disturbing passages were put there for gratuitous titillation or that they suggest some kind of vicarious approval by the author. The novels contain disturbing passages because the novels explore a disturbing subject: combat. Allen's claim that a novelist necessarily endorses the actions of those in his novel and that his vivid descriptions of objectionable incidents and individuals provide insight into the novelist's own values must arise from one of two possible states of mind. Either the Senator is completely, embarrassingly ignorant of the purposes and methods of serious fiction, or he is intentionally making an argument that he personally does not believe but knows will wound Webb's candidacy nonetheless. If it is the latter, Senator Allen is undeniably unethical.

If it is the former, then the University of Virginia, which graduated Allen, should withdraw his diploma. No novel contains more upsetting descriptions of human sadism and depravity than Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, a novel written to awaken white America to the real human costs of slavery. The tactic of quoting the most upsetting passages was used at the time to impugn Stowe's character and suggest that she possessed the very traits her fiction was intended to expose and deplore. Would Allen have been persuaded? Does he believe that the character of Charles Dickens, a relentless and committed social reformer, was defined by the depraved living and working conditions in London and the inhuman treatment of woman and children he described so vividly in novels like Oliver Twist?

Almost certainly Allen does not believe this. What he does believe is that his outrageous use of Webb's prose will change enough votes to allow him to win his closely contested race. He doesn't care that it is unfair; he doesn't care that it is misleading. All he cares about is that it will help him stay in office. He has, in short, sent the voters of Virginia a very clear message that he is the kind of politician who will not hesitate to violate basic ethical principles in order to hold onto power. This alone should disqualify him for public office.

Allen's attack on James Webb tells Virginia voters nothing significant about Webb while telling them everything they need to know in order to reject George Allen.

Fair-minded Americans can only hope that they are paying attention.

[Disclosure: Jim Webb was in my law school class (Georgetown Law Center, Class of 1975). We knew each other, though not well, and had mutual friends. I have not seen or spoken to Webb in over 30 years. I am not a Democrat, nor do I have any stake in the Virginia Senate race other than the fact that I live in Alexandria Virginia.---Jack Marshall. ]