Angry, and on Message
News: Most of the finalists in MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 seconds" ad contest preach to the lefty choir. But maybe that’s enough.
January 12, 2004
|
|
Tonight, at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York City, a panel of celebrity judges including Michael Moore, Al Franken, James Carville, and R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe will pick the winning entry in MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds" political advertisement contest. The winner - the spot that "best explains what this President and his policies are really about" - will air in swing states during the week of President Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 20.
The finalists are impressive – well-produced and smart, occasionally funny. And with their biting, often angry take on Bush’s record, they’re sure to go over well with the more than 2 million left-leaning voters who make up MoveOn’s membership. What’s less certain is whether any of the ads will accomplish the broader goal the group has set for itself – that of bringing “new talent and new messages into the world of mainstream political advertising” In short, can any of the finalists appeal to voters who don’t already believe that Bush is dangerous, destructive, and a liar?
"The attack approach, the politics of the put-down, plays to a core constituency, of course," says media critic Danny Schecter. "But winning means expanding beyond that.”
That’s the conventional wisdom, of course. But it’s become fashionable to question that conceit. Forget swing voters, a growing number of pundits suggest, success this year will depend not on winning over the undecided but on appealing to a partisan base – and getting every one of them out to vote. It’s worked -- so far -- for Howard Dean. And while one (maybe two) of the MoveOn contest finalists just might appeal to a swing voter, the rest are a feast for people who are ready to despise Bush and vote their feelings.
Like the Dean campaign, MoveOn has derived a large part of its appeal from being unabashedly anti-establishment. The blurb launching “Bush in 30 Seconds” declares, “we believe that by tapping into the vast talent pool of creative people beyond the Beltway, we'll find the right messages and ads to expose the failure of President Bush's policies." Also like Dean, the group has used the decentralized reach of the Internet to build membership –- and influence -- quickly.
By most measures, the contest was a huge success. More than 1,500 spots were entered, many by professional filmmakers. The entries were posted on MoveOn’s web site, and more than 100,000 members cast their votes based on four criteria (overall impact, originality, memorable content and delivery, and clear message). "The competition exceeded our expectations," says Joan Blades of MoveOn. "The response has been amazing." At the eleventh hour, a new set of categories was added, and voters were invited to vote for the funniest ad, the best youth-oriented ad, and the best animated ad. Fifteen ads made the final cut and now go to the panel of judges, who will pick the best overall.
So which is the best? All 15 are surprisingly well produced -- not slick, exactly, but definitely polished. Pros in the business say, a little wistfully, that the entries are easily as good as the average mainstream ad. "Unfortunately, they compare very favorably to the ads put out by the professionals," says Wynelle Evans a producer based in Boston who has developed campaign spots for several Democrats, including Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.
But just about all the finalists are so plaintive, so angry, so negative, that they risk falling into self-parody: a conservative’s idea of liberal outrage. When it comes to detailing what Bush is “really about”, the finalists have settled on a few, well-established themes. The most popular: Bush is a liar. One spot, titled "Polygraph", features a lie detector responding feverishly as the president presents his case against Saddam Hussein. The needle jumps convulsively at Bush’s mention of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, or his links to terrorism. Another, titled "Bring Em On," shows footage of the same speech while an inset box flickers with the faces of servicemen and women who have died in Iraq. "He Lied, They Died," runs the tag line. A third, "The human cost of war," closes with the caption, "Lies, the real WMD."
As extreme as all this sounds, the ads are, of course, on pretty solid ground here. There’s no shortage of evidence that the Bush administration knowingly misled America about the threat Saddam posed. But will the message that Bush is a brazen liar find an audience among mainstream voters -- many of whom are neutral or mildly supportive of Bush -- in the swing states where the winning spot will air?
"The idea that the president deliberately, maliciously lied, even if true, is difficult for the American people to swallow," says Daniel Payne, a Democratic media consultant. "They're saying Bush was extraordinarily duplicitous. People dare not believe that; it breaks the sacred bond between citizen and president.”
If Payne is right, if middle-of-the-road Americans aren’t yet ready to believe that Bush misled the nation about Iraq, they might also be put off the harsh truths offered up by some of the other finalists. One, titled "Robbin' the 'Hood," features a man in a Robin Hood getup and a George Bush mask stealing money from kids, oldsters, and working folks, then depositing his bursting swag bag with a corporate fat cat type. Another, "Bush's Repair Shop," amounts to a case study in displaced rage in which a car mechanic (the Bush administration) promises to "repair" a car (um, America) only to smash the hell out of it with a crow bar.
“The message is that you get rid of Bush and everything will be OK,” says Schecter. “That's an oversimplification, it's not focusing on the institutional changes that are needed. It's not educational. I think MoveOn's work is superb, but there's a need to develop a campaign that focuses on making America better. Negative ads turn people off."
Schecter’s assessment is echoed by Anthony May, a Democratic political consultant. "A few of the ads have broad appeal, the ability to cross over demographic and cultural barriers. The others are too doctrinaire, there's a sophomoric side to them. People will be able to tune them out."
Conservative pundits, of course, have been preemptively claiming that the entire contest is little more than an orgy of negativity and unhinged liberalism – an allegation that was given an unwelcome boost when the Republican National Committee charged that several MoveOn ads compared Bush to Hitler. Last week, MoveOn acknowledged that two of the more than 1,500 ads submitted to the contest – neither of which passed the initial muster and both of which have been repudiated by MoveOn -- made reference to Hitler in considering Bush’s record. But Republicans aren’t about to let the matter drop.
"I think the contest has been very effective," says Whit Ayres, a Republican media consultant. "Effective for George Bush. It reinforces the view that those opposed to Bush are incredibly strident, leftwing and out of bounds. At the end of the day, the Hitler ad is all people will remember about this."
Considering that millions of Americans are likely to see the winning ad when it airs next month, Ayres could be disappointed. Even the most aggressive ads fall a long way short of comparing Bush to Hitler. And one of the finalists – the most effective, according to several political consultants -- opts for subtlety over axe-grinding. The spot, titled "Child's Pay," is made up of a string of vignettes showing small children dismally doing minimum-wage-type adult jobs (washing dishes, hauling garbage, working assembly lines). The spot features no voiceover, only a bluesy guitar line. The tag line: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?"
"'Child's Pay' is the best by a mile," says Payne. "It's evolving, fanciful, it gets the viewer wondering, what does it mean? People are very T.V.-literate right now, and they're willing do a little bit of work. It also taps into a latent fear of Americans that their kids' lives won't be as good as theirs. A lot of people will be sympathetic to that argument. Successful ads will move beyond the people who wouldn't vote for Bush if he were the last person in the world and change the minds of people who are mildly in favor of Bush. And this one could do that."
But is that really what MoveOn should be aiming for? ‘Child’s Pay’ might be a hit with the conventional-wisdom citing consultants, and even with some undecided voters. But the conventional wisdom is already taking a beating this year. If, in fact, 2004 is the year of the energized base, the year of the candidate who can turns out his core voters, then maybe ‘Polygraph’ or ‘Bring Em On’ will serve MoveOn’s purposes better.
"Don't forget, conservatives have been very successful at advancing their positions by preaching to the choir," says May. "It's tempting to dismiss guys like Limbaugh out of hand because they're jerks, but they're effective, too."
Julian Brookes is the assistant editor of MotherJones.com.
