Subliminally Superior

Teddy Roosevelt proclaimed, “The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages.” The overtones of racial superiority have been echoed before in many past presidents. The prejudicial sentiments seem to be bubbling back up to the surface in the current election year.

Historically, stereotypical imagery of African Americans has been irreprehensible from the use of the blackface minstrel shows of the 19th century to modern media’s depiction of African Americans as morally inferior. Lawrence Grossman, former CNS News president, stated local news “disproportionately show African-Americans under arrest, living in slums, on welfare, and in need of help from the community.” Even in video games, the stereotypes are alive in that 79% of African American male characters engaged in physical and verbal aggression. The constant barrage of stereotypical imagery has been subconsciously placed in the minds of many Americans and it is constantly affirmed in entertainment and media.

Recently there was a fabricated story of the mutilation of a white McCain supporter by a tall knife-wielding black man that has been making the rounds. The fact that a McCain aide pushed the story along to news organization without substantiating a shred of it is idiotic. The backwards “B” carved into her cheek should be as clear of an indicator one need for the validity of her story. This underlying meaning of the story perpetrates the imagery of the “savage” and it’s frightening because it plays on the fear and imagery of that stereotype.

I wish that these types of stories would not sway people toward the McCain camp by fueling the perpetual fear created by stereotypes. I fear many have already chosen their candidate by the superficial color of their skin because of their subliminal trepidations. Because media and entertainment continuously recycle negative labels, I’m defeated in knowing that this behavior will continue indefinitely.

Positives in Negativity

The Christian Science Monitor’s opinion piece entitled “What’s Good About McCain-Obama Mudslinging” by John Greer, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, makes the claim that negative campaigning is more beneficial than positive campaign advertisements. I originally had intended to take issue with Mr. Greer’s point of view regarding negative campaigning but the more I dissect his argument the more sense it makes.

Throughout the article, Greer makes the statement that since a nominee will not present their flaws and weaknesses to the general public it’s up to the opponents to do this for them. I see this also in how nominees always try to shape their image by only presenting nondescript and vague attributes to them that tend to be built to attract on the fence voters (i.e. cutting taxes, expanding healthcare). These attributes are echoed exactly by the almost all of the other candidates. Because of this, an informed critique is needed to at least give disclaimers on why the general public, who is not that political informed, shouldn’t cast their vote for a specific candidate.

Greer also makes the point then when attack ads cross the line it can prove disastrous if the ad doesn’t contain the evidence needed to support it. Mr. Greer gives the example of the McCain’s recent “sex education” ad, claiming that Obama was supporting sex education for kindergartners. An additional example can be taken from McCain’s “celebrity” ad where it compares Obama to the likes of Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears. These types of ads lack evidence and primarily attempt to impart a subconsciously negative image of the opponent to undecided voters. In a recent poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post indicate that the 59 percent of the American public accused McCain of negative campaigning while 35 percent claimed he was addressing the issues. These negative attack ads are proving to be a detriment when attacking opponents with unsubstantiated evidence and personal attacks in the current presidential election.

Greer’s article identifies that negative ads when used correctly provides the American voting public a source to gain an informed critique. When used incorrectly it can backfire by making the candidate appear petty and slanderous. The strengths of each candidate will always be displayed prominently since tooting their own horn is a skill in which each has mastered. Their weaknesses also need to be accessed and the best way to convey to a generally ill informed populace in a digestible manner is through negative ads.