Double Negative

            While exploring the web for political ads on the side of both parties, the greatest deficiency I found in John Kerry’s campaign is that his TV spots are not accessible in Quicktime™ format.  GeorgeWBush.com, however, was on top of things, and as a Mac user, I was able to experience the full measure of Kerry-bashing negative political ads of the Bush/Cheney’04 campaign through their extensive video archives.  If it weren’t for other medium of communication, I would almost be convinced to vote for the more technologically friendly candidate.
            Once I was able to view some of Kerry’s ads as well, it was evident that the main characteristic of the negative political ads of either campaign is the efficient way in which images are used to portray the opposing candidate in a disadvantaged position.  The choice of shots, quality of picture, reproduction of sound and subtle editing manipulations selectively expose moments of weakness or even create the illusion of such.  This is done in a way that, while the intelligence and awareness of the audience is underestimated, these images are nonetheless associated with the candidate and certainly affect the public’s perception, if even to the slightest degree, of that candidate’s image.
            The focus of Bush’s campaign seems to be the apparent hypocrisy of Kerry’s policies, and his inadequacy to deal with future terrorist threats to American security.  A quite convincing yet unclear TV spot depicts an educated middle-class female researching Kerry’s history online only to find that he is “Unprincipled”, for reasons that are not well explained, yet are made to sound quite severe.  Some ads claim, in blunt, large letters, that Kerry’s plan will weaken the “War on Terror”, while Bush intends to maintain a strong grip on what is considered “our nation’s best interest”.  Kerry’s website states that “the Bush Administration has provided too little support, too little leadership, and too little vision for the common defense of our homeland”.  The lack of clarity or thorough explanations of issues in either campaign reflects weakness of argument and an overly cautious rhetoric that tries to appeal to as great an audience as possible.
The use of such vague terms are a way of circumventing any honest attempts to explain the state of American relations in the international world.  They offer a superficial level of comfort that is actually disconcerting to any slightly mature audience.  The awful truth seems to be that if such well-researched ad campaigns attempt to manipulate the audience at such base levels, this means the majority of that audience will assumedly “buy into it”.  A candidate’s loss of credibility among the intelligent populations is not important as long as the masses can be persuaded.
            Negative advertisement has even taken the form of a subtler criticism of negative advertisement.  An article with questionable sources appearing on Bush’s website states that: “78 percent of Kerry's primary commercials - and all of his general-election ads so far - were critical of Bush.”  No explanation was provided as to the extent of what is considered criticism, and how much of it relates specifically to Bush rather than issues with similar association.  Of course, the appropriate assumptions are nonetheless made on the basis of this data:  “John Kerry has spent millions of campaign dollars attacking this president," said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for the Bush campaign. "It's clear John Kerry doesn't have an agenda for America. All he has is anger".
            Reflecting back on my inability to view Kerry’s video spots online, I almost rather it remain that way.  While the majority of ads on GeorgeWBush.com were insultingly condescending displays of negative campaigning, I doubt that Kerry’s would provide anything much different.  After all, it would not be surprising if both election campaigns were actually managed by the exact same team of marketing researchers, statistic analysts and media producers.

 

back to writing