How to write a nasty negative campaign commercial

A poorly-done negative TV ad is ugly, unconvincing, dishonest, and it turns people off politics.

Moreover, it can backfire. 

Nonetheless, we will see lots of them. 

We see negative ads because candidates and campaign consultants think they work. They demonize the opponent. Call me naive, but I think exaggerated, hyperbolic ads backfire, at least in Southern Oregon. 

In August we are still in the soft focus let-me-introduce-myself phase of campaign commercials. We get direct-to-camera narrations of what a wholesome person the candidate is, showing the candidate at his home, in a familiar local landmark, at his place of work, talking genially with one or more sets of readily-identifiable constituent groups, e.g., people with hardhats. 

Negative ads start in September. The goal is to define the opponent as dangerous by creating a caricature of him. The elements of that are using creepy music, depicting the opponent in blurry black-and-white photos and video, and by freezing the frame of videos so that the opponent is depicted
mid-word or mid-blink.

Another device is to choose a voice-over narrator with a deep voice, speaking with an ominous tone of implied warning about the opponent while showing text from some presumably neutral news source.

Yet another is to use video clips of the opponent looking happy, while the narrator describes some problem. The implication is that while we hear about inflation, crime, suicides, or business closings, the opponent is happy and unconcerned.

Race matters. It is commonplace in negative ads to adjust the color filter so that dark-skinned opponents are made to look darker-toned, and therefore more "other" to Whites.

The Oregon 3rd senate district race has been a place where negative ads have been used extensively, so I will use it as an example. This year Democrat Denise Krause faces off against Republican Brad Hicks. The district is light blue because it includes Ashland, a charming college town with a Shakespeare Festival that attracts upscale, educated residents, i.e. Democrats. It is understood to be a winnable district for Republicans if they just spend enough money, and then even more money. Past races attracted a million-plus dollars of upstate Republican money, corporate PAC money, and the "usual suspects" of local prominent donors, pouring into a small media market. Money is pouring in again this year. More about this in subsequent posts.

A frequent attribute of a bad negative ad is that it ascribes bad motives to the opponent. Let me invent such an ad, starting with the Democratic candidate. A Krause ad might claim "Brad Hicks wants to pave over paradise and turn our green farms and forests into a parking lot for his corporate buddies."  (He favored reducing the size of a national monument area.) Another might say, "Republican Brad Hicks must be impressed with Donald Trump's lawless ICE agents, since he supports using our tax dollars to force local law enforcement to help ICE out." (Like most Republicans, he opposes the Oregon sanctuary law.)

A Hick's ad might say, "Denise Krause wants to lock up our forests so that they burn up in uncontrollable wildfires, filling our state with dangerous smoke." (She opposes selling land in the Siskiyou Monument.) Another might say, "Denise Krause doesn't care about the property theft, rape, and murder done by illegal aliens, since she opposes having local law enforcement participate in lawful ICE enforcement." (She supports the sanctuary law.)

Note that these ads use a common device: They speculate on and attribute bad motives to their opponent by exaggerating a position on an issue, inventing a catastrophe, and then saying the opponent favors the catastrophe. Do political campaigns actually write such ads? Yes they do write them. I expect you to see them.

The problem with being a Democrat in this district is that the candidate will get outspent five or ten to one, which lets the Republican candidate define them. The problem with being the Republican candidate is that one is awash in money from the most powerful people and business interests in the state, and they donated the money so it could be spent. And spent it will be, in amounts so conspicuous that it cannot be ignored. History shows that the pressure is irresistible to spend it with negative ads. That has an unintended meta-message, an unsaid message within the denoted message. That message is that the Republican candidate is a captive agent of a very rich, very dishonest, Republican power elite who will say anything to win power. Voters reject that.

Tomorrow I will make a "modest proposal" for how Republicans should instead spend the money pouring into Brad Hicks' campaign. I support Krause. So why would I give Republicans good advice? Because they won't take it.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]