Attack Ads: Facing the Inevitable

Political advertising is something everyone knows about and definitely gets sick of at some point or another. During a major election, our politicians take over our television, mail, and phone (calls from supporters), among other things. They talk about how great they are, what they plan on doing to better our county/city/state/and or country, and, of course, how terrible their opponent truly is. A campaign without attack ads is like Ft. Collins without Cam the Ram. However, how far is too far? The attack ads in the last Presidential campaign were fairly innocent compared to the first attack ads. Attack ads can be effective to some degree, but there has to be a boundary to some of the outlandish claims that have been made in the past.

Let’s take a look at two completely different ads in two completely different time periods, both presidential elections. First, there is the “Daisy Girl”, used in the 1964 election with Lyndon B. Johnson attacking Barry Goldwater. This remains one of the most controversial political ads to ever have been aired, and it was aired only once. The ad is credited to having a huge impact on the landslide victory that Johnson had over Goldwater, and even though Goldwater is never mentioned by name in the commercial, the scare tactic was enough for voters and they didn’t need to hear his name to know what the commercial was trying to get at. Goldwater previously had said comments about using nuclear weapons in Vietnam, so the Johnson campaign jumped at the opportunity to pinpoint Goldwater as a reckless weaponry user who was going to make the Vietnam War reckless and more dangerous for Americans. The ad was pulled after only one airing because of the criticism Johnson received for painting a portrait of Goldwater as someone who was going to lead America into a nuclear war. When people are fighting, a phrase that is used commonly is “you’re putting words in my mouth.” Well, that is exactly what Johnson did, he used something Goldwater said and turned into an extremely effective ad that scared people into believing that voting for Goldwater would have dire consequences. Goldwater discussed the possibility of using low-yield nuclear weapons to defoliate infiltration routes in Vietnam, he never actually advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the North Vietnamese, and so while the Johnson campaign didn’t completely make it up, they twisted something that was fairly innocent into something it wasn’t, which I think is taking it too far. It should be allowed to use the facts of your opponent to your advantage, but when you twist something so far as they did, it should not be allowed. Yes it was only shown once, but it should have never been shown, especially since it had the impact it did, it virtually single-handedly took Goldwater out of the race, since Johnson won with 61% of the vote.

Now, let’s fast forward to the present. The 2008 campaign is still fresh in all of our minds, due to the constant criticism of President Obama and many people are still upset at how it turned out. The ads were in constant circulation last year at this time, and all ads were in play: Advocacy ads, which promote a candidate and his or hers ideals, with no negative info about the opponent; contrast ads, which contrast a candidate and/or his or her policy positions with that of the opponent, and can contain attacks; and of course attack ads. The one that sticks out in my mind the most is the attack ad against Obama by McCain, criticizing him and questioning his ability to lead because he is the “world’s biggest celebrity.” Included in the commercial were quick shots of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the latter of which wasn’t too happy about it, and she quickly fired back with her own little campaign ad.

It would be hard to argue that President Obama isn’t a huge celebrity, but comparing him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton was a little ridiculous. Like I said earlier, the attack ads used to be extremely more confrontational and accusatory, but McCain’s ad was more appropriate. If McCain came out with an ad last year that had the same underlying techniques as Johnson’s did, there would have been an uproar. You could liken the McCain ad to the 1988 GOP attack ad of Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis. The ad showed Dukakis riding around in a tank and used his own footage against him, because if you watch the video, he doesn’t seem like someone who many would want to lead. In both ads, the GOP took something from the Democratic candidates and used it against them, Obama with the celebrity status he received from the press because he was the first Black candidate who had the highest chance of winning, and Dukakis by taking his footage and looking ridiculous. “If you listen closely to this ad you will hear the sound of grinding gears, suggesting that Dukakis cannot even run the tank smoothly. That sound was added to the footage; tanks do not have gears that grind. The gear sounds were of an 18-wheeler.” (Attack Ad Hall of Fame) Adding the sound to make it seem like Dukakis couldn’t run a tank was an underlying affect to make it seem like if he can’t run a tank, he is far from being able to run a country, and if Obama is as famous as someone as Britney Spears, he is clearly inadequate as well.

With the above mentioned ads, we can see that attack advertisements can be extremely effective. They do have negative consequences at the same time though. In addition, negative advertising can also be used to demobilize voters. Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar, who wrote Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate, found that negative campaign advertising appeals only to partisans. They go on to say that negative advertising alienates independents and demobilizes them as voters, which causes elections to be fought among the partisan extremes. This makes sense since it removes the independents as a voting coalition to be concerned about and allows the candidates to stick to the party line. Another study done at Ohio State University says that ads that had to do with a Supreme Court nominee “turned off so many viewers that many became less supportive of the court as an institution.” Another downfall to it is something called the “boomerang effect”, as explained by Gina Garramone. “First, many viewers disapprove of advertising that attacks a candidate and such viewers may develop negative feelings toward the sponsor of the advertising. Second, viewers may perceive the negative advertising as an infringement upon their right to decide for themselves. Such a perception may result in reactance, a boomerang effect in which the individual reacts in a manner opposite to the persuader's intention.” Another source, Thomas Hollihan, says that while voters claim to not like attack ads, election results suggest that they work. In addition to that, they may appeal more to republicans and independents then democrats.

So, while the results may say they work, are they really necessary? We should be worried about what a candidate can achieve for us, but we should also be worried about what they cannot. Attack ads make the line blurry though, because some of the claims that are made aren’t always true, and they can be extremely misleading (remember little Daisy?). An election could probably go on without them and I would like to see what the candidates would talk about if they weren’t allowed to attack each other. Without attack ads, more could be accomplished and we would be able to see who the true candidate is because they wouldn’t be able to put the negative spotlight on their opponent and make it seem like they are the right person to vote for. However, that is something that is highly unlikely to happen, so until then, let’s keep things fair and have a clean fight, because no one likes a cheater or a liar!

Links:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/284996.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2009/06/study_attack_ads_may_make_publ.html