People in the Middle
Political campaigning is a lot like advertising. It is “a form of communication that typically attempts to persuade potential customers to purchase or to consume more of a particular brand of product or service.� (wikipedia) The service: President of the United States of America. The brand: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Kerry, Carter, Bush, McCain, Obama, etc. The objective, as well as the hurdle, is to connect to American citizens and appeal to them, or make the opposition seem unappealing. Errol Morris has written an article, “People in the Middle,� about the methods used to attract those who haven’t made up their minds yet and how these methods have changed election after election.
Morris notes the prominence of “real people� advertisements, those that connect the viewer to the real people in the ads, and in some cases, connect the presidential candidate to those real people. This, in turn, connects the candidate to the viewer. Morris takes his examples of ads from “The Living Room Candidate� website compiled by David Schwartz. “Real people� advertisements have always been appealing because of their candid appearance. A 1952 ad for Eisenhower shows a woman in a town hall type of setting, which is nicely lit and has a conveniently neutral background. The woman asks a “candid� question about rising food prices. Eisenhower answers her question earnestly, even giving a shout out to his Mammy? It is all very scripted and not at all candid.
Kennedy gives the real people appeal a shot when he comes to dinner with the Sills. Kennedy sits down to dinner with the all-American family, and they discuss their concerns about the economy, society, etc. It is supposed to be a candid, normal occurrence. The question comes up, though, “JFK shows up in their living room? Was he invited? Did they offer him milk and cookies?� (Morris.) Candid or genuine are certainly not the words to describe the ad and it is certainly not a strategy that would work in the 2008 election.
The 1972 ads for Gerald Ford take a turn toward the kind of “real people� political advertising we see today. People stopped on the street, conveniently switch voters, who tell why they are switching to Republican. Although specific people were used in the ad, the interviews were obviously unscripted. This ad appeals mostly to the people in the middle. Those who haven’t made up their mind yet, who see hardcore Democrats switching to vote Republican may be turned off by opponent Jimmy Carter.
These switcher ads also create a new genre: the attack ads. Morris cites the Swift Boat Veterans’ anti-Kerry ads from the 2004 presidential campaign as memorable attack ads. In these ads, real people who served with Kerry during Vietnam called him a liar, among other things. These advertisements work because they have the real people factor. The downside, though, is the turn off. For me, at least, the ruthlessness of these claims and attacks against Kerry turn me off to Bush, even if he isn’t the one putting out the ad.
The real people appeal is an appeal to the ideals of democracy. The idea is preached and preached that every vote counts, and in this democratic system everyone has a voice in choosing the leaders of our country. With this in mind, it isn’t much of a surprise that McCain/Palin turned real people into a large aspect of their campaign. Joe the Plumber is just like you and me. (Except that we haven’t turned into celebrities, our opinions on politics don’t make it on Fox news, and we aren’t in talks with producers about making that country album we always wished we could make.) The point is that real people advertising works because you and I are real people. The question is, though, with real people becoming increasingly prominent in political campaigns, how far will the real people approach reach, come 2012?
by Nora Nolden
Comments
I would like to directly challenge your concluding statement, "The point is that real people advertising works because you and I are real people." The definition of real as purported in your position statement is that of someone who is not an actor, in the cases described by Errol Morris. However, in this day and age, the term real holds no water in relation to the media.
In the words of Angela McRobbie, "It is no longer possible to talk about the image and reality, media and society. Each has become so deeply intertwined that it is difficult to draw the line between the two. Instead of referring to the real word, much media output devotes itself to referring to other images, other narratives." This is particularly true in the case of Joe the Plumber. Was he a real person? An actor? We may never know, but that debate is essentially moot. The existence of Joe the Plumber in a world outside of the media has no relation to our understand of him and his effect on our decision come election day.
The constant cycle of self referencing by the media, referencing Joe the Plumber, who referenced the media, is endless. The media then creates reality, by simply defining who Joe the Plumber is and what he stands for by production and cinematic techniques. However, this is not to say that the media intends for this to happen. It is a fact of the current system.
It must be understood what these types of conclusions mean in regards to political advertising. The so-called "real people" advertisements do not work because we are real people, or those depicted are real people, or anything of the like. Real people advertisements work because they appeal to the indecisiveness of independent voters (who have become the majority in these modern times). They are another purveyor of the political strategy of a candidate, conveniently depicted in a arbitrarily defined "real" format.
1. McRobbie, Angela. "Postmodernism and Popular Culture." From "Media Studies: a Reader" edited by Paul Marris and Sue Thornham.
Posted by: Reid Olson | November 10, 2008 1:23 AM
There are some aspects of this position statement that I agree with, while there are other points, that I don’t think are totally true. First of all, I would like to say that the author hit it dead on, when he said that phony campaign adds like the ones used by Kennedy and Eisenhower are very easy to pick out for their insincerity. Politicians want to portray themselves as that “good neighbor� down the block, so that they can be trusted by the average American citizen. The only thing is, is that most politicians are not your “average Joe� down the block. Many of them are very wealthy, and in my opinion out of touch with what might be going on in the real world. In think this is why their phony campaign commercials are so easy to spot. They are portraying themselves on TV as something that they are not in real life. I think that these terrible commercials are a direct correlation to the lack of good sincere politicians we have in America today. I am not saying that all politicians are bad people; I just think that many of them put theirs and their friends’ interests before those of the people that they represent. I think that politicians are doing themselves a great disadvantage, when they try to be someone else on TV, instead of being sincere. Hopefully, after this recent election, the American people voted in a better breed of statesmen to go to Washington.
Posted by: Dan Tipping | November 12, 2008 8:43 PM
I completely agree with the author on most points that they have made. I agree with the fact that “real people� advertisements are more affective that others because the fact that they are coming from someone who is not the politician trying to win the race. In my opinion the “real� person in these advertisements gets the point across more quickly and clearly than the politician themselves because they are more prone to promote the supported candidate than to bash the other ones. In addition to this, I also believe that for future campaigns it would be more beneficial for candidates to do the same: just get across the good things that they can bring to the government and spend less time trying to convince the public that the other candidate is the bad choice. Contrary to this point, I think that people may argue back and say that without bad points made against the opponent, how will they know what they are getting into, and this answer is simple: do the research, don’t always believe what you see on television. One classic example on which this point proves most affective is when the author of this position states that in the 2004 presidential campaign when Bush put advertisements on the air about negative things that John Kerry did while serving our country. The author states that they were turned off by Bush, even though he wasn’t the one putting out the advertisement. The ruthlessness of the attack was enough to anger the voter, because the candidate stooped so low. As a whole, I feel as if the author did an excellent job explain how political campaigns can be very similar to advertisements and used great examples to support their claim.
Posted by: Mike Donnelly | November 13, 2008 12:27 PM