Coprolite Newsletter, October 2004

Are you as sick of negative political advertising as I am? How I long for the good old days when political campaigns were more polite and positive. Advertising consisted mainly of buttons and lawn signs. Neither of those had enough room to mount much of a personal attack on the other person running.

Campaigning consisted of actual speeches by the candidates–not sound bites oversimplifying their own positions or misrepresenting the other person’s. And the speeches tended to be more gentlemanly (sorry, but politics is sometimes best described by politically incorrect terms).

I remember my parents being very offended by what they called Thomas E. Dewey’s “mudslinging” when running against Roosevelt in 1944. I was too young then to pay attention to whatever Dewey said, but I’m sure it was very mild compared with the acid barbs candidates hurl at each other today.

Political advertising changed when the media folks began persuading political parties that perception is reality. What a terrific deal that is for a candidate! No need to actually have better ideas and the will to follow through with them. All you have to do is seize on some slogan or issue, harp on it enough, and if people buy it you win.

This wouldn’t have been so bad in the old days when all advertisers followed an unwritten law of civility that forbade even mentioning the competition. You could praise your own toothpaste or vacuum cleaner as long as you didn’t put down somebody else’s product. That went out of style several decades ago. There was quite a shock when the first commercial—I think it was a car ad—actually mentioned a competitor in a negative way.

Mild comparisons then began to be tolerated in product advertising. In political ads, these eventually turned into nasty slurs. They seem to keep getting worse in every election. Now our radios and TVs threaten to poison the very air in our living rooms.

And yet, the solution could be so simple. Political candidates are a lot like pharmaceutical companies. They’re both trying to peddle nostrums that they say will cure whatever problems we have. But there’s a huge difference between them in the way they advertise.

After every page of magazine advertising for a medicine, there are a couple of pages in fine print that explain and largely contradict the claims made in the ad. On radio or TV, a narrator with a toneless high-speed voice provides the fine print.

I think political ads should be required to follow the same rules as drug companies. What would the fine print contain? Let’s follow the model for drug ads and include the following:

1. A thorough explanation of all claims. If the ad said “I successfully fought to reduce taxes,” the fine print would say something like: “After pressure from groups of my supporters and with the cooperation of some of my enemies, I voted for a bill that lowered the tax by 5% on telephone bills for those people who have two or more beige-colored Princess phones.” Any negative claims would require very careful documentation: “When we say that Senator Jones beats his wife, we are referring to their frequent games of Gin Rummy, which he wins 61% of the time.”

2. Possible side effects. “Voting for me may lead to a frequent need to pay higher taxes related to my uncontrollable itch to spend.”

3. Contraindications. “You should not vote for me if you are—or are likely to become—handicapped, unemployed, retired, or a college student.”

4. Harmful interactions. “If you elect me President and at the same time elect a majority of the other party to the House and Senate, four years of severe paralysis may result.”

Think about it. When we take a prescription, we don’t decide on our own what drugs are safe and effective for us. Our doctor tells us. And yet, drug companies are required to give us all that fine-print qualification.

With elections, we have to make the choice ourselves based on whatever data we have. So isn’t it ten times as important for politicians to provide the same kind of honest detail that drug companies do?

Come to think of it, this is too good an idea to use only in political advertising. How about this: whenever a candidate gives a speech, a “translator” stands off to the side reciting those toneless high-speed fine-print words that explain the real truth of the matter.

If you don’t agree that political advertising should be held to the standards of drug advertising, consider this idea: Martha Stewart just began a jail term for telling a lie about a stock sale. President Clinton’s enemies mounted an impeachment effort because he told a lie about a sexual relationship. Why don’t we simply jail or impeach any political folks who tell a lie of any kind during their campaigns?

The only disadvantage I see in this approach is that the TV networks would suddenly lose an awful lot of advertising revenue. And maybe there would be a shortage of candidates running for office.

I think I could live with that.

––Wayne Adams
wayne@coprolites.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To read other Coprolite Columns, return to Newsletter Archives.

You are welcome to forward this newsletter to anyone, as long as you send it in its entirety. To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coprolitenews.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Who are the Coprolites—a tribe, a secret society, a religious order? If you ’re unfamiliar with this proud but little-understood group, visit http://www.coprolites.org for more information. Find out how you—or that friend of yours who has a birthday coming up—can benefit.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For professionally written and edited newsletters, brochures, speeches, scripts, or web copy, get in touch with WordMagic Communications. We have lots of powerful words in stock, with fresh supplies arriving daily.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Need a speaker for your workshop, seminar, or meeting? Check out The Expert Speakers Group. .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -