Campaign Clichés

It’s cliché time.  It’s that season again: political ads for the next few weeks.  There will probably be very few ideas about how to fix our problems.  The budget for these ads is expected to be over $3 Billion. ($3,000,000,000).  So the political parties and candidates will spend an enormous amount of money to convince  us to vote against the other candidate.   

And of course we’ll hear all the old worn out clichés: The Dems will claim that they speak for the people and the Repub’s don’t.  The Repub’s will claim that only they have common sense and the Dems don’t.  They will both show grainy photos of their opponent in some kind of compromised situation.  Or they will use an out-of-context excerpt of a speech made by their opponent.  Or they will just accuse their opponent of some immoral or illegal act, knowing full well that they are using guilt by innuendo to condemn.  And that no one has the time or interest to invalidate the allegation.

These ads haven’t changed in thirty years.  Why?  Because they work.  Believe me when I say that someone who has enough money to spend on ultra-expensive campaign ads, does not waste money.  So the real question is why do these ads work.  They work because they appeal to a basic ignorance that lives in the body politic.  Don’t get excited!  When I use the word “ignorance” I don’t mean it as an insult.  I mean it in the canonical form, which is “lack of knowledge”. 

Generally speaking the voter doesn’t have the knowledge, nor the interest or time to make a well researched decision about who they should vote for.  In addition to that, almost every voter I have spoken to in the last few years is angry at the folks in office.  So attack ads fill another need; they assuage the anger a bit when we see politicians being attacked; even if it’s being done by other politicians.

The voters don’t seem to care about the facts of the ad as much as the validation that they get from hearing and seeing politicians in a bad light.  In this way, they are affirmed in their affiliation with their party of choice. 

Hate filled attack ads appeal to our most base emotions.  While they convince us to vote against rather than for someone, they allow the election quagmire to continue.  We never really know if the person we elect will do the job for us or for “the party” that paid for the ads.

While the attack ad message is designed to cast aspersions on fundamentally good people, the effect is a widening distrust for everything and everyone political.  And as we enter this season, I’m afraid no one will rise above the putrid smell of “politics as usual”.  The unfortunate reality is that our most precious right – our vote – is desecrated by  politicians attacking each other rather than presenting new solutions. 

Is it any wonder why can’t have a civil conversation about opposing ideas?

Robert DeFilippis