The most provocative political advertisement ever created was the anti-Goldwater spot the LBJ campaign comissioned in ‘64. Let’s see whether you catch the gist: A little girl frolics on a hillside meadow, picking daisies, smiling, healthy, beautiful (and white). Goldwater’s stern face appears while the voiceover explains his foreign poicy. The little girl suddenly appears in a negative image, like the “solarized” photos Man Ray experimented with. A nuclear mushroom cloud explodes in the screen, in furious black-and-white. Goldwater appears again.
(The correct answer appears at the end of this review.)
The horrifying and the lovely images of the ad, and their perfect juxtaposition, make the case. You wouldn’t need to hear anything at all to know what was being said. By implication, by the gentlest persuasion of all - a persuasion without a whisper - the viewer is led down the right path, Johnson’s path, the path of sanity, the path of goodness, the path of beautiful meadows containing pretty little girls. Even to imagine anything invalid in its perfect demonstration makes you guilty.
Another fine negative ad was produced for the Bush campaign in ‘88 - the infamous “Willy Horton” ad. While Bush’s opponent, Michael Dukakis, was Governor of Massachusetts, he signed a routine weekend furlough for a convict named Willy Horton, who spent his weekend raping and murdering. The TV ad featured a montage of images: the face of Willy Horton (looking almost Goldwateresque in its brooding, scowling stare), images of street violence, and film of men dressed in prison blues walking through a revolving door. In a spark of genius, the producers of the ad used a cut-away, overhead view of the revolving door - without walls, without a ceiling, completely porous.
(The correct interpretation appears at the end of this review.)
I hated this ad in ‘88, when I spent almost all of my free time watching C-Span and political shows. The neat suggestion of the ad, though without any real merit, was palpably damaging. In comparison, anything Bush did would appear wise, prescient, and statesmanlike.
My general view of advertising is that truth-claims play almost no part in establishing the meaning or the effectiveness of the ad. Most of the time, this is an easy argument to make, since the terms ads use to distinguish one product from another - “best tasting,” “most luxurious,” “best value,” etc. - are legally meaningless.
At first it might seem that campaign ads, especially negative ads (which make far more specific claims than positive ads), are exceptions to this rule, and that they may even contradict my theory.
An important difference between the LBJ and Bush ads described above is that the Bush ad depends on a factual claim, namely, that Dukakis signed the order that gave Horton the weekend out. But from this fact, the ad could be interpreted to draw a crazy tangle of inferences: Dukakis is “soft on crime,” Dukakis is not a careful executive, Dukakis is thoughtless of the rights of victims, Dukakis is generally incompetent. Certainly, none of these conclusions are validly argued by the ad.
None of this makes sense of the use of the images (which are powerful, even if they are not up to the standard of the LBJ ad). The revolving door, which locks no one in, and which furthermore has no “inside” since there is no solid wall or roof, does not make any factual claim. Instead, it provides an opportunity for the viewer to fill the image with meaning. An argument to prove Dukakis was negligent in the Willy Horton case, and that furthermore this negligence proves his lack of qualification to be President, would hold no viewer’s attention and concern the way this image did. Evoking our interaction, impelling us to work to produce a meaning for the scene, is the effect of the image.
The images do for the campaign what the candidate could never do for himself. They allow the accrual of meanings, favorable and unfavorable, to persons. Like consumer products, the candidates are stand-ins occupying positions in the play of meanings. The “fact” that Goldwater had an aggressive foreign policy and the “fact” that Dukakis signed the furlough for Horton are overwhelmed by the construction of ulterior significations.
ANSWER TO THE LBJ AD. The message of the LBJ ad is: If you vote for that homicidal maniac Goldwater, he’ll kill all the little girls!
ANSWER TO THE “WILLY HORTON” AD. Bush’s message is: Dukakis wants criminals to rape and murder everyone!