Slogan-based ads insult voters
As elections have passed I pay more attention to campaign advertising. That's a complete turnaround from my prior approach, based on such trivial things as issues, philosophy of government, and education level.No, I'm not cynical; just more observant.
I was so eager to turn 18 so I could finally vote. What a privilege it is, to have a real say in how one's life is governed and by whom. At first I deferentially assumed candidates were well qualified, sincere, and much smarter than I.Idealism eventually gave way to realism. Candidates and officials are like people everywhere; some meet the list, some don't. The trick is identifying them.
Once in office, even the best can have trouble adhering to solid principles, mired in the give-and-take, complexities, incessant learning curve, and required patience that is government leadership. Qualifications are one thing, but effective survivability doesn't follow suit.To learn more, I got involved. I worked with and for officials in government and on campaigns. I befriended and participated. I learned much and developed new respect. Most elected officials do work hard and generally mean well, even if voters don't agree with all their actions.
That was my issue phase. I can't say I've left it altogether; issues are always most important. More than simply having a position, a thorough knowledge of all sides is vital to good decision-making. An uninformed opinion has no value.So how can campaign ads and doorhandle flyers reveal any of this? They can't, I initially concluded. During the issue phase, I largely ignored them, instead focusing on responses in surveys, newspaper guides, and public debates.
The limitation in that thinking goes back to philosophy. Yes, from a candidate's viewpoint it's difficult to reduce views on complex issues to bullet points. They must make choices, revealing what they think voters need most to understand about them.Which brings me to this phase: advertising is revealing. I'm sick beyond measure of vague catch phrases that no longer mean anything beyond their applause-eliciting, Pavlovian reaction. Examples are "family values," "support our troops," "freedom," and "stop illegal immigration." What American candidate of any party would claim to oppose these? The slogans therefore do little to distinguish, to help me make an informed decision.
Candidates of any affiliation whose literature provides merely a list of these and a photo with flag and family impress me none. The rare ads which give me specific proposals, positions beyond slogans and catch phrases - these say something worth thinking about.The reduction of campaigns to slogan wars isn't just unhelpful to voters; it's insulting.
Like Pavlov's dog, the right sound bite provides a reaction devoid of analysis; that's what so many campaign designers count on. Succumbing to it - and statistically, we do - shows voters to be puppets, easily manipulated into a supportive fury by feel-good words which elicit not a real understanding of how a candidate will operate if elected, but rather the voters' own emotions. Rile us up for one, and against another. A war of buzz words, an emotion contest of campaign ads for a simple public.I like to think we're smarter than that, even if we don't always act like it. We can influence the next round by not rewarding candidates who dumb down their advertising, appealing to and relying on emotions. Vote for the ones who take voters, not just themselves, seriously by appealing to intellect.
Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. E-mail sholehjo@hotmail.com
Sholeh
Patrick