Tomorrow is election day or, as I like to think of it, The Day The Fun Slander Commercials Stop. There's something wildly entertaining yet socially and mentally crippling about campaign season. Kind of like a car crash you can't take your eyes off of...only you're involved in the car crash and the car is sitting on top of you, crushing you slowly. Obviously, we're all accustomed to the negative, slanderous ads candidates jam down or throats on radio and TV to discredit their opponents. We've been dealing with it as a collective since way back in 2000 when a little known philosopher (I believe his name was Rove-acles) theorized that the best way to win an election is to make your opponent into the Anti-Christ. People will be so afraid of making the wrong choice, that they'll be forced to vote for you, even though they have no idea what the hell you stand for. Just not baby killing and tax hikes.
Having taken part in about a dozen debates on the production side of things this year, I've noticed a few odd mutations negative campaigning has had. Here they are in no particular order...
5.) "I represent change. I'm a new voice." (Subtext: Remember when this got Obama elected? People like the word "change!")
4.) "My opponent is a career politician." (Subtext: People don't like politicians. Which is weird, because that's what I'm trying to be. Maybe nobody will notice.)
3.) "My opponent doesn't understand the legislative process." (Subtext: You're inexperienced. Ergo, you'll never hold office. Only those born into the legislative process have required experience.)
2.) "I'm going to work hard to get jobs." (Subtext: Ummm...something to do with taxes? I don't know. Maybe print more money? Can we do that?)
1.) "My opponent has voted with ______ over ___ percent of the time!" (Subtext: Find someone who has already proven to be unlikable...make them seem like Hurley and Charlie aka, BFF's.)
In Massachusetts, it seems that every Republican running for office is trying to seperate themselves from the bats**t crazy Tea Party while doing an impression of Scott Brown. I look at someone like Sean Beilat, who's trying to unseat legendary jowell enthusiast Barney Frank, based on the fact that he's "a new voice" and "an outsider" attempting to oust a liberal Democrat. In other words, he's trying to capture some Scott Brown magic. So in the Southcoast, we've been treated to a slew of "Retire Barney" rallies on street corners which inevitably spill into intersections and cause accidents and generally piss people off. On Frank's side, we've gotten really condescending messages about Beilat's lack of intelligence.
One problem though: Scott Brown didn't win his damn race. Martha Coakley lost it. Coakley ran one of the worse, least organized, lazy races in the history of the Commonwealth, and Brown played a conservative, voter friendly, "Don't Crap on Kennedy's Grave" approach. Democrats didn't vote because Coakley was such a terrible candidate, the Republicans smelled blood, and they struck. End of story. All it proved was that a good, honest candidate can win regardless of party in MA.
In other words, dropping gloves and trying to convince people that the guy in office is Hades himself only works if...well...you're running against Hades. Or, at the very least, a dumbass.
These attack ads don't seem to be gaining traction with anybody, even party extremists. With politics basically being a popularity game akin to high school sex parties now, the ads are pretty much "Which one of us is going to get people talking most and can we actually trick people into thinking the world will end if the other is elected."
All those little talking points we're hearing are going to come back over and over and over until...well, probably forever now. It's borderline unthinkable to imagine an elected official of any capacity generating positive emotions from a vast majority of voters regardless of what they do for their constituents.
In the end, political agendas may change. Elected officials will certainly change. Hell, policies might even change.
But the way our prospective leaders go about getting our vote? That ain't changing any time soon.
I like the points you bring up, definitely interesting. These commercials have always bothered me. I know that politicians need to advertise what they're about, and I know that they want to get the most votes, and I know that TV ads are one of the best ways to reach the masses. That being said, I think the majority of them go over the top and become completely rude. There's a nice way to say "I'll do things different from this person and here's why" without absolutely tearing the opponent apart. Personally, I think it's unattractive and I end up caring more about changing the channel than listening when politicians talk in that kind of tone.
ReplyDelete