Attack Ads: The Junk Food of Discourse

Today in class we touched on the idea that candidates may be losing their ability to successfully and persuasively cover issues when they are supporting the political status quo. As someone argued, it is much harder to construct a “rally around the status quo” argument than it is to construct a negative ad tearing down the status quo. So what effect does this have on campaign ads?

In my opinion, this general lack of desire to appeal to status quo supporters is resulting in a growing reliance on a more negative, attack ad hegemony. Almost every single advertisement that I have seen (for both sides) concerning the upcoming congressional election has been an attack ad. Instead of calling attention to all of the accomplishments that Perriello or Hurt have been a part of, most ads focus solely on the voting history of the opponent, and how this history is going to (in so many words) destroy Democracy and your happiness.

Is this occurring because it is easier to make an advertisement tearing down something than one building it up? One could also argue that these attack ads are just more effective in persuading voters. In speaking with fellow college students I have noticed that the general consensus about these ads is that they’re obnoxious, blatantly manipulative, and lacking substance. For this reason, most people that I know change the channel when a political attack ad comes on. But perhaps this is just because these ads aren’t intended for us to see. Instead they may be intended for less educated, less skeptical people, who may be more apt or willing to accept these exaggerated negative claims.

If these attacks are in fact just targeting certain populations, why are they the only ads that I see? I would hope that I am not in the demographic that is assumed to be persuaded by these ads, because from what I have heard, that is definitely not the case. If this is targeting specific voters, is it being done right? Or is it possible that because these ads are part of a smaller race (when compared to presidential elections) the limited resources available are being channeled into the types of advertisements that have been proven to be the most effective in the largest audience?

For whatever reason these attack ads are becoming so prominent, whether it be a lack of motivation to try and “rally around the status quo” or an attempt to target populations that respond well to these ads, I think there is a fundamental problem with seeing hundreds of ads on television and learning nothing positive and concrete about either candidate. Theorists have in the past referred to campaign ads as “political multivitamins”, informing people of the political environment in a prepackaged and entertaining form. However, I can’t see these types of ads informing people of anything legitimate and in that sense, if informational ads are multivitamins, these are surely junk food. Is there a way to produce an ad that sells the product like junk food, but affects voters like a multivitamin?