Election 2012: Using Attack to build Character

President Barrack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney exhange smiles ahead of their Presidential Debate. However, there's been a lot more dirty work being done in the advertising.

 

It’s time once again to join the travelling media circus that comes around every four years. On November 6, 2012, the people of America will take to the polls to decide the President of the United States, the man who single handily becomes one of the most powerful in the world for the next four years. Of course, many Americans have already decided on their vote, as their political views run deep through their veins. But with growing conflicts around the globe,  the undecided will need to choose one of these men to lead the world’s superpower, one job that requires a lot of character, not to mention the stress that comes with it (I don’t think Obama had a single grey in ’08).

Since announcing their candidates, both the Democratic and Republican parties have been hard at work to one up the other to appeal to the undecided voters. With the television becoming a common household item in the 1950s, election campaigns have run to promote the candidate vying to become the President. There has always been a strong emphasis on the character of a candidate, as the American people need a strong person to lead their country to victory and global dominance. In 1960, John F. Kennedy’s staff ran an ad promoting his youthfulness being just what American needed, in essence to rid themselves from the past old presidents. George H.W. Bush too boosted his character in 1988, running an ad portraying him as a family man, and average American just like everyone else. But times have changed drastically since then, with a major shift away from building your own character.

Election campaigns have taken a turn for the worse (for good reasons) in recent years, as a growing trend in political advertising has moved to promote the party by attacking the other candidate, essentially building their ethos off the errors of the other. Surely everyone knows about Mr. Obama by now. He’s had six years of media exposer playing up his character, his policies, and his wonderful speaking abilities. The republicans have criticized his rhetorical power for going too far, and doing nothing about the growing unemployment rate. Romney on the other hand is new to the show, as the average American may not be up to date with his political stand point. However, if they watched one of the democratic ads, they would believe that he ships jobs out of the country, causing struggling families to succumb to their debt. These ads are not designed for the extreme Republican and Democratic supporters, who vote for their parties no matter what, but rather the masses who particularly don’t follow politics regularly. Franz and Ridout call this the knowledge hypothesis, stating that these ads will have a stronger effect of the Americans less in tuned with politics, persuading them to one side of the spectrum.

Specifically looking at Barrack Obama’s “Understands” ad, the Priorities USA Advertisers claim that because of Mitt Romney’s decision to move a company out of the United States, Mr. Soptic (the man in the ad) lost his wife. Rhetorically, the ad is blaming Romney for the death of this woman, attaching tags such as, “murderer,” to his persona. To the average American in a conundrum, not knowing who to vote for, this speaks a great deal about who they should not vote for. Franz and Ridout point out two main factors influencing voters being partisanship and political knowledge, stating that the less knowledge a person has of politics, the more political ads are going to affect their decision, as opposed to those who are in the know. Obama’s ad works wonders on unknowing Americans, especially the unemployed, as they won’t want Romney harming anyone in their family.

Mitt Romney’s campaign takes similar approaches to their advertising, building up the lesser known Romney by exploiting the faults of Obama during his four year term. Two clever ads featuring the tagline, “Failing American _______” ran criticising Obama for not stopping manufactures in China from stealing jobs, and taking money away from families in America. Again, the ad plays fantastically on the politically naïve, as Americans in crisis look at Romney as the saviour for all of the problems Obama has caused. While this ad plays a general American theme, Romney’s campaign also released an ad criticizing Obama for giving the government credit for creating all small businesses, claiming that the ownersand entrepreneurs did not do it alone. The icing on the cake is that the video featured a man from Ohio, one of the states Romney is keen on taking to secure his spot in the White House. The ad devalues and attacks Obama’s character, as he tries to take credit for all of the hard work of the American people. On the other hand, Romney’s ethos grows, as he’s portrayed as a compassionate leader, encouraging the American people to live their dreams and build their own businesses.

So far this election campaign, no candidate has been spared, as each have gone head strong after the other. It seems as if we’ve moved away from a time of judging people by their character and good deeds, to condemning them for their faults, gaining from their blunders and misfortunes. Both Obama and Romney need not worry about building their own character to impress the voters, but must keep their composure to ensure their rival doesn’t receive an upper hand. May the best attacker win.