Generally speaking, getting back to normal is a worthy goal and ultimately an admirable accomplishment in response to major adversity. Trying to regain one’s balance after the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks still remains a difficult proposition on many fronts, but steadily, different pockets of our society are making progress, even as tumultuous, uncertain times continue.
However, I find little solace in the return to "normalcy" on the political campaign trail. In my Pollyanna view, I had hoped that the events of 9/11 might cause the body politic to rethink and redefine "business as usual." And for a short while there was some civility to be found as reflected in University of Wisconsin Advertising Project research, which reported that for several months after terrorism struck the U.S., political ads had become more positive in tone.
But that reverted back to mudslinging these past two months, according to the same University of Wisconsin study. While SHOOT has chronicled the advertising industry’s many notable endeavors in the aftermath of 9/11, the election returns—no matter what your political persuasion—clearly show that many of the candidates, strategists and ad folk they’ve recruited have created a body of work that is a source of shame and embarrassment.
The race for governor in California featured two candidates in the attack mode, their campaigns steeped in negativity with little more than lip service paid to issues of real concern to Californians. And according to published accounts, the same can be said for contests throughout the country. The Wisconsin Advertising Project cited, for example, the Senate races in New Jersey, Colorado and Georgia as being particularly nasty and negative. The same can be said of House races in New York, Nevada and Montana, among other states.
In some cases, negative muck-raking ads backfired, resulting in voter backlash against the accuser. But often, the gloves-off approach sans any substantive discussion of issues proved successful in getting candidates elected.
But whether negative ads help or hurt a candidate isn’t the issue. The big-picture concern is the effect of negative advertising generally. A Los Angeles Times story talked to Californians who decided not to vote this year. One man, who hadn’t missed an election since 1956, opted not to cast a ballot. "I’m really disgusted," he said. "In my lifetime in California, it’s the dirtiest campaign I’ve seen. I really don’t care at this point who is governor."
Thousands of other Californians—be they old, young, Democrat or Republican—have expressed the same sentiment. A social worker explained, "It’s not apathy. It’s more of a form of protest…I think it states that the issues I’m concerned about are not being spoken about."
A retired man said of the California gubernatorial candidates, "I see the commercials they put against each other. One is worse than the other."
A naturalized citizen who gained the right to vote two years ago said that he didn’t cast a ballot this time simply because, "I don’t like the politics, basically people going at each other."
When those who aspire to lead choose to be negative and to not even remotely address issues in their advertising, how fit are they to be leaders to begin with?
In some respects, 9/11 underscored the importance of us getting back to basic common sense principles that promote the greater good—the value of coming together and dealing with issues, of getting people involved in the democratic process, of offering support for the notion that one person can make a positive difference. Political campaigning in far too many instances has become the antithesis of those values.
