Not contrast ads; just negative ads

There’s a scene at the start of the movie Slum Dog Millionaire where the hero, Jamal Malik, is attempting to make a great escape from some bad guys who are chasing him because of an autograph of Indian movie star Amitabh Bachchan. He dodges through the town, past piles of what appears to be trash, and finds an outhouse, the only place where he can hide. As the bad guys close in, he realizes he has but one way out, through the seat to the dreck below. Of a sudden, he makes his decision and drops through the hole.

When I think about the political ads running nearly non-stop on the telly today, I come to the same conclusion that Jamal reached. The only difference is that the hole Jamal falls into stinks just a little bit less than the sewage reeking from my TV set.

Why is it that politicians have a penchant to pummel the electorate with base, foul, and often lie-filled tirades?

Truth is, for some reason, negative campaign ads seem to work. We, the public, wandering around in our herds, seem to like the fodder and are bent willy-nilly by whichever ad seems to be the most on point, clever, or direct.

In truth, the sponsoring parties have other names for such nasty devices. According to Peter Callaghan, staff writer for Tacoma’s The News-Tribune. He says that if the ad is against your candidate, then it is a negative ad. But if it favors your candidate, it’s a contrast ad.

Contrast, really? I guess, in some way, the sponsoring party can feel good since it’s not polluting the country’s air waves with more crap than the Richmond sewage treatment plant on I-95.  If you travel the Interstate anywhere near south Richmond on a sultry summer day, you know the place by its bouquet.  It can blanch your nostrils and completely overpower the sweet smell of tobacco from the warehouse on the other side of the highway.

Okay, I think you get the point.

Now I don’t consider myself old fashioned or much of a prude, but there are times when I could use a little less mudslinging from my TV. For years, we members of the electorate would hunker down behind our couches praying that neither candidate would feel so insecure in their chances for election or re-election for that matter, that they would feel compelled to break out the WMD ads and obliterate the country.

Today, we don’t have to worry about hunkering down. There isn’t a nice little space in time when the ads build up a candidate, or talk to the salient points of why they ought to be elected. Nope. Today we go directly to nuclear proliferation. And what’s worse no holds are barred.

Misinformation, personal digs, or outright mendacity – to quote President Obama, “all options are on the table” as the candidates, or more precisely their handlers, pummel the people with negative ad after negative ad.

But it isn’t just the presidential ads that are negative. They even extend to senatorial campaigns, right on down to local offices. Sorry, but I can do without that. I guess we should feel blessed that there are only three weeks left before they reap the benefits of their contrasts in negative campaigning. Here’s to November 7^th.

Move over Jamal; I’m ready to jump.