the liberal democratic process, in which citizens learn and choose rationally
on the basis of policy. As he puts it, ‘we are forced to ponder the possibility
that our electoral process does not enhance the type of information-holding
and political choice that are the most clearly and directly associated with
democratic theory’ (ibid., p. 183).
Myth and symbol
If it is a matter of empirical fact that US political advertisements have become
steadily more image-oriented, rather than issue-oriented, in terms of what
they say about the candidates they are selling, it is also true that ads have
become more symbolic, or mythological (in the Barthian sense). In the 1960s
US ‘spots’ began to apply the socio-psychological theories of motivation and
consumer behaviour then prevailing in the commercial advertising world. In
the 1964 presidential campaign Tony Schwarz prepared spots for the
Democrats which reflected his belief that ‘the best political commercials are
similar to Rorschach patterns. They do not tell the viewer anything. They
surface his feelings and provide a context for him to express those feelings.
Commercials that attempt to tell the listener something are inherently not as
effective as those that attach to something that is already in him’ (quoted in
Diamond and Bates, 1984, p. 133). From this perspective, the political
advertiser should not seek to win a presidential vote by packing a spot with
rational information about policy. Rather, the fears, anxieties and deeprooted desires of a culture should be uncovered and tapped into, and then
associated with a particular candidate.
In 1964 Schwarz pioneered this method with the ‘Daisy’ advertisement,
made for Lyndon Johnson’s presidential campaign against right-wing
republican Barry Goldwater. The advertisement began with the image of a
little all-American girl, sitting in a field and plucking the petals from a daisy.
As she does so, she counts ‘one, two, three’, etc. Then, this idyllic image of
American childhood is shattered by the rude intervention of another, male
voice, counting down ‘ten, nine, eight’ to zero, at which point the screen is
filled with the dramatic image of a thermonuclear explosion. A voiceover
then tells the viewer that to avoid this scenario he or she should vote for
Johnson and not Goldwater.
The advertisement works by surfacing the widespread anxiety of the
American people (at the height of the Cold War), about the dangers of nuclear
annihilation in conflict with the Soviet Union, and linking that danger with
the policies of the Republican candidate. Goldwater was vulnerable in this
respect because of his openly hawkish attitude to the Soviets, and a tendency
to make jokes about ‘dropping atom bombs in the men’s room at the
Kremlin’. Schwarz’s spot exploited Goldwater’s reputation and made it work
on behalf of the Democratic candidate.
COMMUNICATING POLITICS
94
The manifest emotionality of the ad’s construction generated controversy
at the time, and indeed such was the feeling of outrage at the use of such
manipulative tactics that it was shown only once during the campaign (and
once in the context of a news item). Subsequently, however, the emotional
appeal has become a routinely deployed tactic, if not always in such dramatic
fashion. In 1984 the Reagan re-election campaign produced a ‘Morning for
America’ spot, depicting in glossy rustic tints an America of hard-working,
God-fearing pioneers. The advertisement tapped into what the campaign’s
researchers had established was a deep longing amongst many Americans for
a past and a country like the one depicted in the film. The ‘American dream’,
or myth, was then attached to the concept of the Reagan presidency.
The same strategy was applied by the Reagan campaign team to foreign
policy. In one spot a deep, soothing voice warned viewers that ‘there’s a bear
in the woods’. Here, the Reagan campaign was manipulating the fear of
communism and the ‘Russian bear’. Demonising the Soviets was of course a
central feature of Reagan’s presidency, and this ad sought to identify him
with the defence against it. Although the name of Reagan’s opponent in
1984, Walter Mondale, was not mentioned in the ad, the film attempted to
secure the audience’s assent to the notion that another Reagan term was the
best defence America had against communism.
To manipulate mythology and deep-rooted cultural values in this way
implies a degree of sophistication in the market research carried out by
campaigners. Ronald Reagan’s electoral success has been ascribed in large
part to the market research efforts of key media advisers like Dick Wirthlin
and Roger Ailes, who successfully identified the motivations and values
underlying the voting behaviour of key sectors of the American electorate.
As former Conservative media adviser Brendan Bruce puts it, Wirthlin’s
valueresearch for the Reagan campaigns ‘represents the most important
advance in political communication of the last two decades. It provides the
image makers with the best possible guide to the effective presentation of
policy, by creating a clear understanding of how voters make their choice of
party. It also supplied them with a rich and subtle vocabulary of persuasive
language and motivating symbols’ (1992, p. 87).
Signifying power
Before leaving the subject of values, emotions and symbolism, we should
note the importance in political advertising of symbols of power and status,
and the advantages which these give to an incumbent candidate or party. A
candidate in office, such as Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984, inevitably
acquires a stock of experience and credibility which can be represented in
advertisements by the use of archive footage of press conferences, foreign
tours, meetings with international leaders, and so on. These visuals, with
appropriate verbal accompaniments, become powerful signifiers of authority
ADVERTISING
95
against a challenger whose administrative experience may be limited to the
governorship of a small state.
In 1988 George Bush made effective use of this device. Although not
himself an incumbent president, he deployed his considerable experience as
vice-president, and former head of the CIA and Congress, to market himself
as practically a president already. One spot showed him in a protective
embrace with Ronald Reagan (signifying the trust and endorsement of the
still-popular president), meeting Gorbachev and Thatcher, and signing
treaties – all images of ‘presidentness’ to which Michael Dukakis had no
response. Bush tried to appropriate to himself the symbolic power of the
presidency, a tactic which may have contributed to his win in 1988, although
it failed to prevent his defeat four years later.
Negatives
Another controversial or ‘attack’ trend in US political advertising has been
towards the ‘negative’ spot, i.e. advertisements which focus on the alleged
weaknesses of an opponent rather than on the positive attributes of the
candidate him or herself. In the context of American television, negative
advertising has played a part in campaigning from the outset, taking on a more
important role from the 1964 presidential election onwards. Tony Schwarz’s
‘Daisy’ spot was a negative, highlighting Goldwater’s alleged propensity to be
confrontational towards the USSR. The spot was structured around
Goldwater’s ‘negative’, rather than Johnson’s positive characteristics (other
than, of course, the fact that Johnson was not Goldwater). While, as Kathleen
Jamieson noted earlier, ‘simplification, sloganeering, and slander’ (all usually
important elements in a negative spot) were not invented by televisual political
advertising, the perception of most observers has been that negatives have
become more prevalent with the growing centrality of television in
campaigning. Kaid and Johnston argue that the 1980s in particular were a
decade in which negative campaigns and ‘mudslinging’ came to predominate.
In the presidential election campaign of 1988, they calculate, between 60 and
70 per cent of all political advertising consisted of negatives (1991).
Indeed, 1988 was the year of the best known negative of all – the ‘Willie
Horton’ spot produced by supporters of George Bush in his presidential
contest against Michael Dukakis (Diamond and Bates, 1992; Jamieson,
1992). The spot accused Dukakis of being ‘soft’ on crime during his tenure
as governor of Massachusetts, citing the release on weekend leave of
convicted murderer Willie Horton. Horton, the ad informed viewers, took
the opportunity of his break from jail to sexually assault someone else.
Dukakis’s liberal approach to law and order in Massachusetts became a
negative, used against him with what most observers of the 1988 campaign
considered to be devastating effect.
COMMUNICATING POLITICS
96
Another negative spot by the Bush side contrasted Dukakis’s declared
‘green’ policy with his record as governor in Boston, where it was alleged he
had allowed the harbour to become polluted.
Successful in 1988 (in so far as he won), Bush’s negatives in the 1992
campaign against Bill Clinton did not prevent the latter from winning. One
ad, for example, highlighted Clinton’s avoidance of the draft in the 1960s,
asking viewers if this was the kind of man they would wish to see as US
Commander-in-Chief. Other ads referred to well-known Clinton lapses, such
as smoking (but not inhaling) marijuana and having extra-marital affairs.
Clinton won nevertheless, the voters apparently regarding such peccadilloes
as irrelevant to his presidential potential, or at the very least outweighed by
what they perceived as Bush’s poor record. This failure suggests that the fears
of some observers as to the impact of negative political advertising on the
democratic process are overstated. Ansolabehere and Iyengar, for example,
state that negative ads ‘suppress voter turnout’, are responsible for ‘record
lows in political participation, and record highs
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..