As I mentioned in a prior post, I have little use for those namby pamby political pundits who whine every election cycle over the lowly state of political discourse in modern campaigns, and who pontificate against the use of campaign attack ads.
Negative campaigning has existed since the Roman Republic, and candidates who want to win use them because they work. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ripped the hell out of each other, as did Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglass. The voters did not seem to mind. As George S. Patton would say, “All Americans – all REAL Americans – love the sting of battle.”
Only candidates who think they have an election won wage positive campaigns. Typically, this occurs when a well funded incumbent simply ignores a poorly funded opponent entirely. Positive campaigns are ignored by the media and the voters because they are boring. Negative campaigns are more fun.
The 2010 campaign for Governor of New Mexico promises to be close, brutal and entertaining. Although Diane Denish and Susana Martinez have taken a brief respite from ripping into each other, all of that will change after Labor Day. In the meantime, it is worth reflecting on the different kinds of negative ads that have worked in the past, and that we can hope to see in the next few months.
One of the most famous – or infamous - campaign attack ads ever was the Willie Horton ad during the 1988 presidential race between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis:
Mr. Bush and his campaign manager, Lee Atwater, were roundly criticized for the ad because of its alleged racial overtones - even though the Bush campaign never ran this ad (it was run by an independent group) or any ad with Mr. Horton’s picture in it. Regardless, there is no question this ad re-enforced the public’s view that Mr. Dukakis was soft on crime and too liberal. Mr. Bush overcome an early 17-percent deficit to crush Mr. Dukakis in November.
Twenty-two years later, the Willie Horton ad appears almost tame. Consider the ads produced earlier this year by Hollywood consultant Fred Davis for the Carly Fiorina campaign for U.S. Senate in California. These ads are a creative mix between standard issue campaign attack ads and entertainment – with a dash of Monty Python.
Previously, my colleague Mr. Galt posted the “Hot Air” internet ad against Senator Barbara Boxer, which shows her inflated head floating like a Death Star balloon over the State of California. The ad includes footage of the senator dressing down a general – a decorated war hero – who neglected to call Ms. Boxer “Senator.” It goes on to ridicule Ms. Boxer’s total lack of accomplishment, deriding the “3″ measly bills she has managed to pass while in office. At the end, her big balloon head is pricked with a pin, and is seen splashing down in the Pacific Ocean.
I have no idea if this ad will elect Ms. Fiorina, but I love watching it.
During the primary campaign, Mr. Davis also produced the Demon Sheep ad against Tom Campbell, outing him as soft on tax increases and public spending:
The Davis ads have been widely criticized and even ridiculed, but they apparently are working. Ms. Fiorina won the primary, and is within striking distance of the incumbent.
The most effective negative ad is when you simply run footage of your opponent being an imbecile. The best example of this- probably ever – is the Heather Wilson ad against Patsy Madrid at the close of the 2006 congressional campaign. As election day neared, Ms. Madrid, the sitting two-term Attorney General, had a solid lead in all the polls. With support surging for Democrats across the nation, Ms. Madrid had the election in the bag. Unfortunately for her, she agreed to one debate with Ms. Wilson, and promptly froze after being lobbed a softball question on tax increases, resulting in a devastating ad:
Stick a fork in Ms. Madrid’s election chances, and her political career.
Of course, attack ads can backfire. Just ask Allen Weh, who was roundly criticized during the gubernatorial primary for running an ad that implied Susana Martinez had cheated on her taxes. New Mexico has a long and inglorious history of candidates going too far when attacking their opponents – from Senator Joseph Montoya referring to his opponent, former Astronaut Harrison Schmitt, as a little monkey in a space capsule during the U.S. Senate campaign in 1976, to Senator Schmitt blowing his own re-election chances six years later for making unfair attacks on his opponent, present U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman.
In the end, all candidates should remember that the most memorable and effective campaign ads are often not negative at all. Recall the famous “Bear in the Woods” ad run during the 1984 presidential election by the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan:
For those of you too young to remember, the Bear was the Soviet Union – the evil empire that Mr. Reagan brought to its knees, without firing a shot. The ad made no mention of Mr. Reagan’s opponent, Walter Mondale, or of the inept and pathetic Jimmy Carter. It simply reminded voters that it was smart to be as strong as the bear – if there was a bear. Indeed.
Like Mr. Carter four years earlier, Mr. Mondale was undone.