For the past year, negative advertisements have swarmed the airwaves. “My opponent dresses like a Nazi on weekends…” “My opponent isn’t a true Christian…” “My opponent is a socialist… “ These comments are only a few left over from the past midterm election. All parties involved were guilty, painting their opponent as outlandish, cruel, and dishonest. Yet, for once both parties could finally agree on something. Those commercials are exhausting. Elections have always had negative advertisements, but this year’s election was filled with only negative views. Making it impossible for any person elected to receive respect from the American people. Negative advertisements have been seen to have a deeper affect on voters, yet once in office there is distrust from the beginning.
Studies have shown that in today’s society, negative advertisements tend to have a deeper influence on voter turn out. Almost as if the American people enjoy watching a candidate go up in flames. Yet, most polls show that the American people feel like these ads have no impact on their voting decisions. Then why do politicians feel like they need to continue using violent advertisements? This tactic is not only reserved for politicians. In Colorado there was an ad supporting Amendment 62, a law stating that protozoa in the womb are humans, making it impossible for any woman to have an abortion under any circumstance. This ad portrayed President Barack Obama the “angel of death.” The commercial was so offensive it was taken off the air immediately. On Election Day, seventy one percent voted no, and the amendment was not passed. Could this have been due to such a negative campaign? Yet for politicians, negative advertisements make one look slightly better than the other. An edge that is necessary in harsh elections such as these.
Could this edge help them when in office? The answer is no. Already they have a bad reputation, and the American people have trouble trusting them. In 2008 twenty three million Americans between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five voted, the highest turnout of young voters in history. In this weeks midterm election only nine million turned in their ballots. True, midterm elections always have a smaller turnout than presidential elections. But, what happened to that enthusiasm? Could it have been smothered by negative political ads by either party? Meghan Mohon, although she is only sixteen and not old enough to vote, made an excellent point: “It’s like choosing between the lesser of two evils…” This is what happened to the young voters. Negative ad after negative ad has formed a pessimistic view on government as a whole.
This disapproving view on government was at times the basis of many political ads. “The Pelosi /Obama agenda” and “taking back our country” was at times plastered on TV screens for the entire commercial break. This promise to change, yet again, was the reason sixty house seats were turned over to the Republicans, furthering the party divide. This divide will make it harder for either party to continue with their plans. This forces them to compromise, a plan which some senators and representatives have already shot down. Words used throughout the campaign like socialist, communist, muslim, and infidel stick even after Election Day. Now many congressmen have to compromise with these people they insulted for the past year. These are people who they openly disagree with, and now, together, have to find a middle ground. Their negative advertisements are now becoming their downfall.
One would think that once the election is over, the ads would cease. Yet, that is not necessarily true. Now those elected in office have to keep their supporters enthusiastic for the next two years, something the Obama administration did not focus on. It is projected that now, more than ever, the American people will continue to see negative political ads. The plan is to keep the populace angry, and end the current administration. It is not to form more jobs, fix the economy, or help solve the current education crisis, it is to gain power through harmful bantering between the two parties. If these elected officials spent as much money on the country as they do political ads, the economic recession would be softened. In a “Time” article on Meg Whitman’s campaign: “She has already given $119 million to her own campaign, making her the single largest self-donor among statewide candidates in U.S. history, and is on pace to spend tens of millions more by Election Day.” (Sorensen Sept. 20, 2010) This in a state where unemployment has reached twelve percent and the deficit is around twenty million dollars. (Sorensen).
The political world has become nothing more than blasting ones opponent. They throw around insults, lies, and secrets to portray their rivals as scum to give them an edge. Yet, when in office, they struggle to cooperate with those whom they disagree with, and the American people sit waiting for the change promised. The younger generation of voters loose interest quickly when political candidates attack each other ceaselessly. What is the cause of this pandemonium? Negative political ads. The effect is a nation divided by hate and gridlock, a populace with deep seeded distrust in the government and a lack of interest in change. The solution for this struggle cannot be for the American people to be nice to each other, that does not win elections. Yet, citizens should not be forced to listen to one angry ad after another. Instead, it is the candidate’s job to think of how they will present themselves to the voters. In Governor Hickenlooper’s campaign, he produced a commercial showing how after every negative ad he feels like he needs a shower. He told the voters his views while not portraying his opponents negatively. He won with fifty one percent of the Colorado population’s vote. If more candidates had ran a campaign like this one, there would have been less anger in the voting places. And maybe the American people would be confident in their choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment