On The Ad Wars

The brouhaha over Rush Limbaugh's despicable comments regarding Michael J. Fox's advocacy of candidates who support full funding of stem cell research is the most indicative of what has been a dirty season of attack ads and recriminations. The dirt's mostly coming from the GOP side, of course, as they aren't blessed with a record or an agenda and thusly must smear to win. I wrote about wrong number-gate earlier this month and thought it was so ludicrous that the Republicans wouldn't press further, but it turned out that they made an ad out of it:

• In New York, the NRCC ran an ad accusing Democratic House candidate Michael A. Arcuri, a district attorney, of using taxpayer dollars for phone sex. "Hi, sexy," a dancing woman purrs. "You've reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line." It turns out that one of Arcuri's aides had tried to call the state Division of Criminal Justice, which had a number that was almost identical to that of a porn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25.

Wrong number-gate is only the most egregious of the many personal attacks happening around the country. Heck, there are attack ads for my local city council race where the narrator of the ad was somehow duped into recording it against a candidate he endorsed. But attack ads aren't anything new. They come out more often when one side fears losing, and are backed up against the wall. No, the innovation of this political cycle is the DISTRIBUTION of advertising. It's the ability to post something at YouTube and to make sure it reaches people virally that has changed the game. Simon Rosenberg has noticed that this change in distribution has made ads more human:

Surveying the ads this cycle it is clear that many more of the most memorable ads we’ve seen is a candidate, or other “real” people, speaking directly to camera. Think of Harold Ford's great ads, or the Tester/Schweitzer ad mentioned in Stanley's piece, the wonderful ads from Women's Voices Women Vote or Michael J Fox. They are attempting to be more real, more intimate, more authentic. And they connect. I think humor has been used this cycle not as an end in itself, but as a way of connoting that the message is real, and “not political.”

This new attempt to connect to people in more meaningful ways I think has come for two reasons. First, as she suggests, the broadcast era of political communications is exhausted, and a new rapidly changing digital and personal age is emerging. This new age is still very nascent, and what we are seeing is the first of a new wave of efforts to connect to an audience that is no longer as open to traditional 30 second spots or broadcast media norms. These direct to camera ads are in essence an acknowledgement that it is getting much harder “to break through.”

Second, people are deeply unhappy with the current direction of the country, are seeking a “new direction,” and want to better understand what is happening to the country they love. The Bush era, with its failed government, extraordinary spin (lying) and disconnect from what people perceive to be the reality of the day, is leaving people wanting “straight talk,” authenticity, realness, leveling. They want to better understand what is happening, and are looking for leaders to show them the way – and not manipulate them.

I agree that breaking through is the key, which is why you're also seeing ads that are playing more as entertainment. In addition, with YouTube doing the hosting, more creative people outside of campaigns are putting their own spin on the election (including yours truly).

Making ads that inform and entertain is certainly preferable to the boring dreck that some candidates churn out. I also agree with Rosenberg that the common thread are ads that get to the core of an issue with straight talk and logic, whether funny or emotionally predictive. That's why Rush Limbaugh couldn't handle the Fox ad, and that's why Fox had such a brilliant and graceful response. Fox is a real person affected with a real disease, while Limbaugh is a political animal playing the same game he's always played:

Limbaugh is just one of many loathsome characters who have made names for themselves by treating politics as a game, a fun and profitable little pastime that has no real-world consequences—and the richer he gets, the more real a lack of consequences becomes for him. The luxury of staggering wealth means never having to worry about Social Security, or healthcare, or how much gas costs. It’s a game. Who cares.

And in that game, people like Michael J. Fox aren’t real people. They’re images on a screen, they’re pawns to be played. Stem cell research isn’t a real thing. It’s a political football. Safely nestled away from the real world in a radio studio, Limbaugh doesn’t want or need to think about the people he mocks, the people he uses to score a goal. And he doesn’t want or need to think about the people he addresses, either, or what it means that they might very well refuse to give up a seat on the subway, and that he provides their justification, fuels their ire. He’s just too busy having fun playing his game to be hampered by anything that matters, anything that might suggest the game he’s playing is a very dangerous one indeed.

Political tweakers cannot compete with real emotions and real issues. They will always seem petty by comparison. And the Republican way of co-opting this technique always leaves something out in translation:

They just love to distort. Michael Steele's got a new ad featuring his sister defending his position on stem cell research. "There’s something you should know about Michael Steele," she says. "He does support stem cell research, and he cares deeply for those who suffer from disease. How do I know? I’m Michael Steele’s little sister. I have MS, and I know he cares about me."

Obviously, the devil is in the details. Steele supports adult stem cell research. He doesn't support embryonic stem cell research. He's trying to confuse voters on the issue, and using his sister's condition to imply that he'd never oppose treatments that could help someone so close to him. But he does. In case you were wondering, the National MS Society supports "using all human cell types that might further the development of treatments and a cure for MS. Thus the Society -- along with the American Medical Association, other voluntary health organizations, and many scientific societies -- opposes regulations that would limit the full exploration of this important area." Thus, they oppose Michael Steele.

Steele is good at Republican martyrdom and victimhood. It's almost never real. This is where the Republicans are losing the public in this campaign.