From “I Like Ike” to “Mitt Killed My Wife”
Campaign slogans were more positive in 1952. Photo by Thom Watson via Flickr.
Political television advertisements have become a contentious issue in this election cycle, with both the Romney and Obama camps questioning each other’s integrity for allowing certain campaign adverts to be broadcast.
Before considering today’s debate, let’s delve into a potted history of political advertisements in American presidential elections.
In the 1952 election, Republican candidate Dwight Eisenhower’s television advertisement was one the first to effectively use this new technology to reach potential voters in their own living rooms. His upbeat video shows cartoon people joyfully marching to Washington D.C., singing, “I like Ike!”(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TctDYRECE9o). Eisenhower went on to win the election against Democrat candidate Adlai Stevenson.
Stevenson challenged Eisenhower again in 1956. In Stevenson’s attempt at political television campaigning, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3VOqfgUEw&feature=relmfu) he came across as wooden and uncharismatic, talking about the consequences of the Eisenhower administration for the cost of living. The advent of this new campaign technique meant that presidential candidates had to be media-savvy and likable on TV.
Negative television campaigning has roots in the 1964 presidential race between incumbent Lyndon B. Johnson and Republican challenger Barry Goldwater. Even though Johnson’s advert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k&feature=related) does not explicitly mention Goldwater, the advert plays on fears of Goldwater’s infamous quote, “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.” In it, a young girl’s attempt to count to ten is interrupted by a nuclear explosion. Compared to this rather implicitly negative ad, the Democratic advertisement used in 1968 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBDtdkKCcmA) was much more overt. It focuses on Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Spiro Agnew, playing a sinister laugh with the sarcastic slogan “Agnew for vice-president?”
Perhaps one of the most effective political television campaigns of the modern era was Reagan’s extremely positive 1984 “Morning Again in America” advert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY). This ad uses optimistic images of everyday American life and explains how President Reagan’s first term has put America in a better position than four years before.
The Obama campaign effectively used new technology in the 2008 race, energising the youth vote and spreading his iconic “Yes We Can” message through the internet and social networking sites.
Many of the American voters I have spoken to on my trip criticise the election broadcasts that have been transmitted so far in the current election cycle.
“I don’t watch the adverts anymore, they’re just stupid!” said a woman I met on a tour of the Capitol buildings in Washington D.C.
In a December 2011 Gallup poll examining Americans’ attitudes towards the presidential race, 70 percent of respondents replied that they could not wait for the campaign to be over, compared to 26 percent who could not wait for the election to begin.
In one of the most recent controversial adverts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj70XqOxptU), paid for by the organisation Priorities USA Action, a man who lost his job after the closure of a steel plant owned by Romney’s Bain Capital says that his wife passed away because he could no longer afford health insurance. In a message to Republican supporters, Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus criticised the ad. “With no record to run on, President Obama and the liberal Democrats continue to practice Chicago-style politics, making false accusations that disgrace the Office of the President,” wrote Priebus. “President Obama and his allies have gone from implying that Governor Romney is a felon and murderer to saying that Republicans want to put Americans in chains.”
Many of these provocative advertisements are paid for by organisations called political action committees, often referred to as PACs, which may have ties to a candidate or may promote a specific cause independent of a particular campaign. A new form of PAC, called Super PACs, cannot directly contribute to campaigns or political parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independent of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, there are no legal limits on the amount they can raise from corporations, unions and other groups, and individuals. It is illegal for the presidential campaigns to co-ordinate these Super PACs— which means that all the campaigns can do is hope that Super PACs supporting their ideas do not broadcast anything too controversial.
Added to this debate is the recent firestorm created by the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). This decision interprets the first amendment rights— freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the press— as prohibiting the government from restricting political expenditures by corporate organisations and unions. This decision was extremely unpopular with the American public; in an opinion poll by Washington Post-ABC after the ruling, eight out of ten respondents said they opposed the High Court’s decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent “strongly” opposed. Both Democratic and Republican voters who I have spoken to about the issue so far unanimously agree that there should be some modification to the ruling.
Having grown accustomed to the UK system of strict controls and time-allocated slots on the television and radio for each political party during an election period, it is certainly eye-opening to witness the very different politics of campaign advertisements here in the United States.
For more Oxonian Globalist coverage and comment on the US Election:
