Skip to main content

The Original Attack Ad?


Political liberals claim that conservatives have nearly perfected the art of political attack ads. Attack advertising demonstrates weakness and lack of integrity. Conservatives have unfortunately been very successful with attack ads. But way back near the beginning of television broadcasting, I think the liberals probably had the first attack advertisement. Although untrue, it was very effective.

Attack ads, in my opinion, are political advertisements that are based very little on the substance of of a political candidate's views. They are, rather, an attempt to instill fear into voters in order to get them to vote against a particular candidate's opponent instead of for the candidate himself.

Unfortunately in American society, political attack ads have come to be seen as legitimate entertainment, and thus have become accepted by large segments of society.

Conservative political candidates have been very successful with attack ads. This is unfortunate. Attacks such as these serve no other purpose than to polarize society. It's much more important (and in the long run more effective) for a candidate to simply compare and contrast his or her views with those of his or her opponent. It is correct for liberal politicians and voters to decry such demagoguery.

But liberals use attack ads probably as effectively as conservatives. And I think liberals might have been the first to use the attack advertisement. When I was a young child (not old enough to have remembered the original) I remember seeing a replay the following attack that the Lyndon Johnson campaign perpetrated against Barry Goldwater. The contrasting images of the little girl and the mushroom cloud have had a lasting impression on me. The Daisy Girl ad convinced many Americans that Goldwater's stance against communism would lead to nuclear annihilation, which was untrue.




Attack advertising is inappropriate. It doesn't really matter who started it. Conservatives and liberals alike should demonstrate their integrity by refusing to produce and air attack ads.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

The Inhumanity of Bob Lonsberry: Waterboarding, Concentration Camps, and the the Bataan Death March

KNRS 570 radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry advocated waterboarding and other forms of torture during his show on April 21, 2009. More grotesquely, he was beaming with pride about his advocacy campaign. It's difficult to imagine then, that, by the same rationale, had Lonsberry been a German at the time of Hitler, or a Japanese during the Bataan Death March, that he would not have advocated torture of Jews in the concentration camps or the bayoneting and shooting of American soldiers on the Bataan trail. Torture, Torture, Everywhere! Nearly 80,000 American soldiers were captured by the Japanese in the To contemplate a discussion about whether or not torture is legal or whether it even works, it is first required to come to the conclusion that 'I am a child of God, but my adversary is a monkey'. Phillipines in 1942 and forced to march with no food and very little water for six days. If a man stumbled, if he didn't respond quickly to a command, or if he tried to get wat...

Why Do Liberals Coddle the Radical Islamic Monster?

Many liberals and progressives in the United States and elsewhere support a radical Islamic fundamentalist movement which, if it came to power, would quickly wipe out their liberal progressive ideology. Why then, do so many liberals coddle the monster that would destroy them? The Answer lies in their long-stemmed hatred of Western liberty and free markets. Dick Morris' new revelation of Hillary Clinton's ties to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism provides an excellent backdrop for me to ask the question that Greg Allen of The Right Balance has been asking for quite some time, to wit: If many liberals stand for free sexuality, homosexuality, the use of drugs, binge drinking, and other mindless expressions of individuality, why do so many of them also look the other way when it comes to Islamic fundamentalism? Don't they know that Iran has put to death as many as 4,000 homosexuals? Don't they know that if Islamists come to power they will not only make sexual perversi...