Negative Campaign Ads in Presidential Elections - Essay Example

Negative campaign ads in presidential elections Political campaign ads or political advertising have become a prominent mode for reaching as well as influencing voters, as theirs’ voting decision are not only based on their personal perspectives but also could be influenced by what they see and hear in the media. On those lines, political parties as well as Presidential candidates, their campaign team, etc., come up with varied types of campaign ads. Speaking of types, one type of campaign ads, termed as positive campaign ads, would provide key details about candidates’ qualities, skills, experience, their policies, their stance on various issues, their future plans for the people, etc. Thus, in this type of positive campaign ads, the presidential candidates would basically promote themselves, their values, image as well as their political propaganda, thereby making a persuasive influence on the voters. However, these candidates could also come up with ads to ‘paint’ their opponents in bad light and they will do that by including negative visuals or sounds involving their opponents, as well as alarming statistical evidences and worst case scenarios. As these campaign ads will make a negative effect on the voters about their opponents, presidential candidates and team are increasingly using these negative ads, especially over the last 30 years, with the media also playing a contributing role in it. Each presidential campaign from the earliest times have been witnessing changes, and when one looks at the campaigns during the middle decades of the 20th century, it bordered mainly on positivism, good-heartedness as well as balanced approach. These campaigns exhibited that approach by incorporating apt as well as positive visuals and music, and so those campaigns did not hint any negativity. “Campaign ads in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s tended to rely more on jingles; they were not as hard-hitting as they are today.” (“Political Mudslinging: Does it Work?”). However, from 1980s till the last elections in 2012, according to political analysts, media and even the public, presidential campaigns have evolved into more of negative campaigns, with negative ads maximally becoming part of those presidential campaigns. This fact was supported by Krupnikov and Easter (100), who stated, “Over the past 30 years, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of negative ads broadcast during American campaigns.” This fact about increasing negative campaign ads was also validated by researches done by political analysts, as they tracked the political advertising for the past three decades. For example, John G. Geer, political science professor at Vanderbilt University, has followed and tracked political advertising in Presidential campaigns from 1960s, and has established that there is a consistent upward trajectory of negative campaign ads. According to Geer, “the proportion of negative political ads has increased from less than 10 percent in 1960 to more than 60 percent in 2008.” (“Political Mudslinging: Does it Work?”). Although, negative campaign ads became a prominent feature in the presidential campaigns from 1980s, one of the earliest and prominent negative campaign ads was the “Daisy ad” that was released during the 1960 elections. This ad featured a girl picking daises amidst the threat of a nuclear war, and was used by then presidential candidate Lyndon B. Johnson to portray that his Republican opponent Barry Goldwater was threatening a nuclear war. “The daisy ad was the first in the style of fear ad—it was an ad that was ahead of its time.” (“Political Mudslinging: Does it Work?”). Then, in the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan was an exception because he avoided utilizing negative campaign ads both in the primaries as well as in the presidential elections. However, that was short-lived because in 1988 elections, George H. W. Bush was alleged to have used the infamous Willie Horton ad, as a way to play an issue of crime as well as a race card against Michael Dukakis. (“Political Mudslinging: Does it Work?”). Another example of this increasing negativity was visible during the 1992 elections, when Bill Clinton through the ad “Read My Lips” criticized his opponent George H.W. Bush’s tax policies. Then in the 2004 presidential elections, there were many negative campaign ads, which directly as well as indirectly made attacks regarding George W. Bushs military record in the Vietnam War. In the 2008 elections, the candidates while accusing their opponents of indulging in negative campaign ads indirectly acknowledged the fact that those campaigns are on the rise, with the candidates spending huge amounts of money to come up with such campaigns. “Your ads, 100 percent of them have been negative,” Democrat Barack Obama told Republican John McCain. In turn, McCain argued “Senator Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history.” (Krupnikov and Easter 100). The 2012 Presidential elections was no exception to this trend, and is referred to as the election, which had the maximum negative campaign ads. “A full 86 percent of Obama’s television advertising and 79 percent of Romney’s has been negative, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising.” (Slack). Thus, these negative campaign ads have increased over the past 30 years, and have become a common phenomenon in the current elections. Presidential candidates through their campaign team and ad companies are coming up effective negative campaign ads by featuring ominous music, disturbing visuals along with a foreboding narration that presents a worst case scenario, if a particular candidate is elected. In addition, these ads could include pictures or clips from news accounts as well, to back up their case and end with a scary tag line. (Slack). The basic reason why these negative campaign ads are used by the candidates is to paint a very negative and even menacing picture about their opponent, so the people would be afraid to vote for that person. In a way, “negative ads mainly incite the fear among people about what could happen if that candidate were to win.” (Cordes). In addition, these negative campaign ads could be deceitfully used by either candidate to remove the negative ‘spotlight’ on them and shift to their opponents. If both the candidates could not find ways to put away some form of skepticism about them, they could place it on their opponents through this campaign. “Neither candidate has been able to … put away doubts about themselves,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said. “So the only strategy is to introduce doubts about your opponent.” (Slack). The other reason, why there is an increasing trend of negative campaign ads is, the candidates and their campaign team in the recent decades want to provide a “shock element”, by “thinking out the box”. That is, instead of bombarding the voters only with positive campaigns, they want to include negative campaigns ads to make people take notice of it. “Observers say its almost inevitable, when the campaigns and their supporters are paying hundreds of millions of dollars on ads, that theres an occasional temptation is to go a little too far to try to stand out from all the clutter.” (Cordes). The other main reason, why this negative campaign ads has been witnessing an increasing trend is, candidates wants to sway away the undecided voters in their favor. That is, in every election there will be a key section of 5 to 10 percent voters, who will be undecided regarding their choice of candidate, before the start and even during the presidential elections campaign. Studies have shown and also candidates believe that these undecided voters can be brought to their side through these negative campaign ads. The campaigns “recognize anything that moves 1 percent of the voters may make the difference between winning and losing. In that situation, they’ll use anything they’ve got.” (Slack). Along with these reasons, the proliferation of media particularly TV and importantly web has further accentuated negative campaign ads. As these negative campaign ads are prominently featured in TV, the increase in the number of TV channels over the past 30 years starting with CNN’s entry in early 1980s, have been contributing to the increase in these ad campaigns. In addition, these negative campaign ads provide the perfect ‘fodder’ for the news channels and their news programs, and they in turn “fuel” those campaigns to the maximum. In contrast to the standard campaigns, the 30-second negative campaign ads “contain great sound bites, arresting visuals, and sensational attacks, all in a package that fits easily into the two-minute format of television news or the news discussions.” (Ansolabehere and Iyengar). Then, in the line with technology plus social networking driven election campaigns, “candidates now rely on blogs, Twitter, Facebook, web ads, and YouTube videos to translate their traditional campaign strategies to the web.” (Krupnikov and Easter 107). With web having extensive reach, these negative campaigns are being produced to reach maximum people. Thus, from the above analysis, it is clear that negative campaign ads in the presidential elections, fueled by media, have visibly increased in the past 30 years, with candidates utilizing it for strong reasons, although “the jury is out” regarding these campaigns particularly from political decency and moral angles. Works Cited Ansolabehere, Stephen and Shanto Iyengar. “Going Negative: How Negative Campaigns shrink Electorate, Manipulate News Media.” Quill Magazine, 1996. Web. 6 May 2014. Cordes, Nancy. “Negative Presidential Campaign Ads going to New Extremes.” CBS. 10 Aug 2012. Web. 6 May 2014. “Political Mudslinging: Does it Work?” Insight. Aug 2012. Web. 6 May 2014. Krupnikov, Yanna and Beth C Easter. “Negative Campaigns: Are they Good for American Democracy.” In Travis N. Ridout (ed.). New Directions in Media and Politics. London: Routledge, 2013. Slack, Donovan. “RIP positive ads in 2012.” Politico. 11 March 2012. Web. 6 May 2014. Read More