***This article evaluates some of the greatest and controversial political ad campaigns of the past half century. The thesis of this article was the use of scare tactics, in order to garner or sway votes for specific candidates. With mid-term elections just a few months a way, now may be a good opportunity to revisit past examples and explore what it was that made them so effective and memorable and in some cases, infamous. -JSM
Fear and Deception in Political Advertising
The Stakes Are Too High
Many people are aware of the methods utilized by ad agencies associated with political campaigns; it is a process that has been a staple of the political field for several decades, becoming more prominent in the era of television. Presidential ads are often the ones that linger with us due to their national impact and exposure. What draws our attention to particular ads over others? Most often it is those that rely on negative messages; specifically those that appeal to our sense of fear, doubt, or trust. Questions of ethics arise when facts are skewered and images are altered in an attempt to mislead or persuade voters. The belief among many today is that these questionable methods have just recently emerged in political advertising or have gotten more slanderous in their claims. However, there are many examples from past decades that illustrate ruthlessness rivaling those running in today’s political landscape.
In 1964, during the presidential race between incumbent, Lyndon Johnson and republican challenger, Barry Goldwater, the fear technique was used effectively by the Johnson campaign to characterize Goldwater as an extremist, willing to lead the U.S on the path toward nuclear destruction. The famous “daisy” ad still remains one of the most vividly powerful and frightening ads in the history of political advertising. Its strength rose not from its accuracy, instead relying on its ability to inflict fear into voters.
The “daisy” ad stemmed from controversial statements made by Goldwater during the campaign that seemed to suggest the potential use of nuclear weapons in the future. Goldwater’s statement that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” allowed the Johnson campaign to capitalize on the public’s fear of nuclear war. The campaign also used the ploy of fear in their slogan that states “Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd. The stakes are too high for you to stay at home.” The innovativeness of these ads contributed to Goldwater’s defeat in that year’s election.
The unique and effective tone of those ads carried over to future elections, like the 1968 presidential race between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. Nixon borrowed many of the same strategies used in the Johnson campaign by producing ads that were visually innovative. These ads charged Humphrey with helping to escalate the war in Vietnam, as Johnson’s vice president.
The ads featured jarring music accompanied by still photographs of Humphrey smiling at the democratic convention intermixed with still shots of poverty-stricken families, disturbing images of Vietnam, and the chaotic scenes of riots in American cities that had largely been linked to the Johnson administration. The ads painted Humphrey as uncaring or impervious to the growing problems facing America at that time.
These Nixon ads met similar criticism that the Johnson ones had four years earlier. Republican National Committee chairman, Dean Burch even went so far as to describe the “daisy” ad as “a horror-type commercial designed to arouse basic emotions.” Similar complaints were made by the democrats against the Nixon ads, as well. Ethical issues seemed to have risen steadily over the years as political ads on television have continued to evolve. Many of them are playing on the fears of the American voters and encouraging them to vote based on feared consequences.
If applying the Potter box, the situation would be the decision by the Johnson and Nixon campaigns to run the fear ads knowing that they were an exaggeration of the truth and that fear was being exploited.
Thus, these campaigns valued distortion of their opponents for political gains over presenting ads that merely discussed their own view on the issues and their aspirations if elected to the presidency. These campaigns valued votes by diminishing their opponents with extreme claims, like the one used in Nixon’s campaign slogan that the voters should “Vote like the whole world depended on it.” The premonition of doom that this alluded to was that the voter must make the right choice in order to avoid a world catastrophe. Notice how reminiscent this was to the Johnson slogan.
***Check back later in the week for the second part of this article.
Works Cited
Boller, Paul F, Jr. Presidential Campaigns.
Oxford University Press; New York, NY. 2004. (P.308-341)
Christians, Clifford G. Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning.
Boston. Pearson Education, Inc. 2005. (P.3-21)
“The Living Room Candidate: Presidential Campaign Commercials.”
American Museum of the Moving Image. 2004. http://livingroomcandidate.com
“Political Advertising- What You Need To Know.” May, 2004.
Publication of the Texas Ethics Commission.
