Ad hominem

A slanted picture of someone is being zoomed in on. Another picture replaces it, slightly warped. Another picture replaces this one, possibly in black and white. All the while a narrator speaks in a scary voice, decrying this person’s integrity.

Attack ads are everywhere, especially now, since we are on the cusp of both Canadian and American federal elections. Attack ads are ads that focus not on the strengths of candidates or on the quality of their characters, but on the weaknesses and inconsistencies of their opponents.

Attack ads are not a new phenomenon either. Thucydides writes about an example in Athens from 427 B.C.. Confronted with the decision of executing captured Mytilenean rebels or not, the assembly flip-flops on the matter after initially deciding on execution. Pro-war politician Cleon publicly harangues the democracy for reconsidering, saying it is “incapable of governing others, and I am all the more convinced of this when I see how you are now changing your minds.” Sound familiar? That’s because accusations of being soft on crime and flip-flopping have been circulating for centuries. The Athenians reach a compromise and only execute the Mytilenean leaders. After that, Cleon’s war party dominates for several years. On several occasions throughout Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, Cleon tries to gain public favour by verbally attacking his enemies.

It worked in Cleon’s case, but can attack ads go too far? Jared Wesley, a professor of political studies at the U of M, said there are “celebrated instances [. . .] where attack ads have gone over the line and have become offensive.” Wesley cited the examples of the infamous Progressive Conservative ad highlighting Jean Chrétien’s Bell’s Palsy and the Alberta Alliance “Blame Ralph” ad. Wesley also said that if attack ads are overused, it might backfire and create sympathy for the recipient of the attack.

But Cleon only resorts to this tactic after he sees his influence waning in the situation. The statesmen want to reconsider their initial vote, prompting Cleon to attack their indecision to gain favour with the people. Could this suggest that attack ads are an act of defensiveness and weakness?

Wesley said no. It would also seem that attack ads are exactly that: an attack. Wesley said the goal is to “define your opponent first. It’s [. . .] putting the other person on the defence.”

A major theme in attack ads is the pointing out of inconsistencies in the opponent’s voting or policies. The opponent is often portrayed as ambivalent. This is exactly the kind of flip-flopping that Cleon abhors. Mind-changing is portrayed as a bad thing.

“It shouldn’t be,” said Wesley. “I’m waiting for a political leader to come out and say ‘Listen. Circumstances changed. I changed my mind. What do you do?’” When asked if he ever heard of anyone using this strategy, Wesley responded, “West Wing. I saw it on The West Wing.”

The bottom line is that campaigns utilize attack ads because they work. “If done properly, in the right context, it works. Parties, especially successful parties, wouldn’t be doing it if it didn’t work,” said Wesley.

But how do they work? According to Wesley, attack ads are effective not so much in swinging the “middle voter” but in mobilizing the base of the candidate to make members feel more strongly about their predisposition. Attack ads, in the United States especially, also target the opponent’s base and attempt to “dissolve their will to vote.” For example, as a result of an attack ad, a Republican might think: “well if McCain is like George Bush, then maybe I should just stay home on election day.”

Attack ads are also specifically targeted at narrow demographics. For example, ads tailored to women are aired on Slice. However, the United States has recently tried a new tactic, according to Wesley, who cited a PBS Frontline documentary called The Persuaders.

“Literally, they’re going door-to-door with Palm Pilots with specific messages tailored to African-Americans, Jewish voters and so on [. . .] They ask you what your religion is or whatever and if you answer the question [. . .] They [can] type in ‘Jewish woman’ and they come up with an ad right on the spot [. . .] They’re basically saying that their opponent is anti-Semitic [. . .] or against equal rights for women [. . .] and it’s not traceable.”

The philosophy of attack ads has been in use for over 2,000 years but this scarily unmediated strategy shows how the idea has progressed from insulting someone in a public speech to specifically tailored messages. This leaves one question: how different would the world be if Cleon had a Palm Pilot?