As we head toward another Election Day, the nation remains as divided as ever. Today it’s all about choosing sides: red state vs. blue state, conservative vs. liberal, PC vs. Mac, creamy vs. crunchy, Pluto a planet vs. Pluto not a planet, Paris vs. Nicole, the list goes on.
Yet even in this politically charged campaign atmosphere, there remains one belief that, across every state of the nation and regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation or crazy cultish religious beliefs, unites us: We all detest campaign commercials.
At least I do. For me, seeing that first TV campaign ad gives me the same feeling I get hearing Christmas music playing in the drug store in the middle of October. With dread, I consider the months ahead and promise myself that this year I will resist the impulse, upon hearing “Frosty the Snowman” for the thousandth time, to strangle a department store elf.
Bear in mind that I don’t feel this way about all TV commercials, which I consider a critical source of important consumer information. Why, how else would I know that most beer drinkers gather in groups as racially diverse as the U.N. General Assembly or that advancements in the pharmaceutical industry have eliminated any worry about being slowed down byincontinence, impotence or a raging case of herpes?
Watching most campaign ads, I can’t help but wonder if this is what the ancient Greeks had in mind when they were birthing the idea of democracy.
“Sen. Duplicitus says he supports traditional values, but look at his record. He supports a law giving women the right to speak without first being spoken to; he opposes the presence of nude slave boys in our bathhouses and senate chambers; and he opposes live-goat sacrifices to the gods in the classroom. Does that sound like traditional values to you? Duplicitus, wrong on values, wrong for ancient Greece.”
The latest innovation is for campaign advertisements to close with candidates explaining that they approved the commercial’s message. As if anyone else would want to take credit. I suspect this is merely a way to reduce the number of angry calls to campaign offices from supporters asking what bonehead is responsible for the stupid commercial they just saw.
Responsibility often falls to the media to sift through the allegations and innuendos to determine the truth behind the so-called “attack” ads. And so commentators wind up saying things like, “This ad refers to Sen. Duberfangle as a ‘known supplier of drugs to school-age children.’ A SkyHigh5News investigation determined that the senator did, in fact, once give a Tylenol to his high school-age son, so this ad checks out.”
As many campaign experts have noted, the purpose of attack ads is not to encourage people to vote for one candidate, but to discourage the other guy’s potential voters. This is a shame, because I believe campaign ads have a tremendous potential to increase voter participation.
The key is for candidates to use commercials to lay out thoughtful, detailed platforms that address the critical issues of the day so that well-informed citizens can determine the most capable and competent candidates.
Ha! Just kidding. No, my real solution is to take advantage of how much viewers hate seeing these commercials over and over. Instead of offering irrelevant comments about who approved the ad, candidates should conclude each commercial by saying, “Unless there is a 90 percent turnout for the upcoming election, the networks will continue running these ads well into the new year.”
Faced with that kind of threat, not even my long-running struggle with incontinence would keep me from getting out and voting.
Examiner Columnist Malcolm Fleschner isn’t sure if he even approves of this message.
