Political advertising

 

The aim of a political advert is to simplify the message in order that the majority of the public can properly understand and support it. Political advertising only works to the extent that it speaks to the voters’ political interests and beliefs, and to the extent that it resonates with voters’ predispositions. When considering political advertising, it must be acknowledged that parties and candidates will always do better on those issues where their party is considered to hold a strong card. For instance, the GOP will tend to highlight national security whereas Democrats might center upon education and health. Political advertisers cannot drastically turn around voter’s preconceived notions; even if they actually wanted to. Those who work in political advertising are only salesman, and they cannot persuade the public if the product is faulty in some way. Ultimately, advertisers cannot sell the package when voters don't believe in the package. For example, Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election because voters perceived the Republican candidate as out-of-touch with ordinary people.

 

One of the consequences of political advertising is that it can actually deter voters. Attack ads tend to appeal towards partisan voters who would probably vote anyway; whilst dissuading independent voters, a vitally important section of the electorate; from voting. Studies have shown that attack ads produce a significant drop in the propensity of independents to turn out and vote. Negative adverts also exacerbate the gap between progressives and conservatives; painting the opposing side in a crude fashion. Negative adverting thereby polarizes and deters voters (Ansolabehere and Iyengar, 1995).

 

Another issue to consider is that candidates are just as likely to win by shrinking the electorate as enlarging the electorate. This is more pronounced on the Republican side, as older people are the most likely to vote and are more likely to endorse the GOP. Either way, there is a very clear incentive to employ negative advertising as it motivates those with the strongest propensity to vote. Politicians can ultimately do nothing without power, and must face the unpleasant truth that the pursuit of power requires them to engage in the dark arts of spin. Inevitably, they may have to trade a few low punches.

 

A further consequence of political advertising is that it makes the task of reaching out beyond the aisle more problematic. Even a seemingly necessary and sensible proposal; such as Obama’s job creation legislation in 2011, was rejected by Congress. Bipartisan compromise is made more difficult when politicians feel vulnerable to attacks ads that might take their words and actions out of context. It is relatively easy to portray a politician in a negative sense in the short confines of an advertisement. This is exacerbated when that politician/party already has a negative image. An incumbent is also vulnerable to attack from the party base during a primary, which again makes the search for bipartisan compromise also more difficult.

 

                Politics is a mixture of both style and substance; and one can only grasp politics by giving weight to the study of both. Politicians are styled and packaged in order to appeal to as many voters as possible. Moreover, politics is advertised much like any other product. Political advertisers typically work on Madison Avenue and are somewhat detached from the reality of everyday life on Main Street. In doing so, they may have exacerbated tensions between them and us within the political process. Political discourse is thereby shaped by professional politicians and ad-men; two groups within society caricatured as being 'elastic with the truth' and living outside the 'reality-based community.'