In George Orwell’s classic novel, “1984,” members of Big Brother’s political party are forced to gather in front of an enormous television every day for a ritual called the “Two Minutes Hate,” during which the image of their leader’s loathed opponent flashes on the screen and all the party members have to scream and yell at him. Anyone who fails to participate would be vaporized by the Thought Police.
Now, that is serious negative campaigning.
Although Colorado voters haven’t been subjected to Big Brother-style tactics during this election cycle, they’ve certainly been besieged by volley after volley of obnoxious attack ads flooding every TV channel and radio station. Millions of dollars have been spent on negative political advertising.
Overwhelmed for weeks by alarming negative ads coming from both parties, exasperated citizens feel they are left with a Hobson’s choice. No matter which way they vote, disaster looms. If Candidate A wins, the Zombie Apocalypse will shortly ensue. If Candidate B takes the prize, then the Ten Plagues of Egypt will be unleashed on our state.
Of course voters are rightly frustrated and disgusted at the overarching negativity present in this campaign season, but it pales in comparison to the presidential election of 1800. This epic gladiatorial battle featured President John Adams and Vice President Thomas Jefferson slinging mud at each other in a bitterly contested race for the White House. One influential Adams supporter publicly proclaimed that if Jefferson were to become president, “We would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution.” A prominent journalist of the time, a staunch Jefferson advocate, retaliated with a statement that Adams was a “repulsive pedant” and a “gross hypocrite” who “behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character.”
While Colorado’s political campaigns have not degenerated to that level, voters claim to detest any and all negative political advertising. Why then do politicians and their handlers continue to inflict it upon us?
The answer: because sometimes these ads work. Campaign consultants point to what is considered the most famous attack ad in American political history, “Daisy Girl.” The ad aired only once during the 1964 presidential campaign season but was nonetheless credited with playing an important role in incumbent Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater.
The ad featured an adorable little girl plucking petals from a flower and counting them one by one. When she reaches nine, a male voice begins a chilling countdown to a missile launch: “Ten, nine, eight, seven … .” When the count hits zero, a nuclear bomb explodes, and a billowing mushroom cloud fills the screen. The ad never mentioned Goldwater by name, but the message was clear. Voters terrified of nuclear war went to the polls in droves, handily re-electing Johnson.
As long as the people who run campaigns see any possible value in negative ads, we will see more of them. However, such messages might be made more palatable to voters if they were relevant (“my opponent has repeatedly raised taxes”) as opposed to scurrilous (“my opponent parties nightly at the Diamond Cabaret”). Campaign managers should also take note of how much people love clever Super Bowl ads. Even the nastiest ad hominen attack could be softened by the Budweiser Clydesdales.
Teresa Keegan works for the courts. Contact her at tkeegan@ecentral.com.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
