John McCain approved a campaign ad called “Woodstock” that compares Hillary Clinton’s record with his own. The comparison is not simple: sounds, images, and the re-enforcement of assumptions are subtle, but sharply distinguish the two. It appeared in New Hampshire, Boston, on the Internet, and has rerun several times as news content. It was paid for by McCain’s presidential campaign.
The ad begins with a crowd shot of Woodstock and a woman in white skipping in a tight circle to up-beat Hendrix. The narrator says that Woodstock is “worthy of fond memories.”
We then see a tie-die background with text asking how much people think Woodstock is worth: “One million tax dollars for a Woodstock museum?” The fun tune turns into a single, low note struck by an organ. It is almost ominous. We jump to Clinton as the narrator answers his own question, “Hillary Clinton thinks so.” This ad is about stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
The narrator’s words appear in the same, frumpy font as the text asking whether the one million dollar museum is necessary. The image of Clinton is small, and appears three times, playing on accusations that Clinton maintains multiple stances on one issue. In the images, she is stripped of personal appeal, her features small, and the repeated photos stress the image more than the person.
What follows is a stark comparison. As the organ turns to shimmering cymbals, a close-up of McCain shot from a slight upward angle makes him strong. The U.S. flag in the background is placed in the context of Woodstock and war protests. The image sets McCain in an establishment, militaristic, patriotic light: respecting he star-spangled. We get a quick look at McCain shaking the hand of what could be a Vietnam veteran, recalling his role in the war as a POW. In sound, image, and words, this is in direct contrast to the portrayal of Clinton.
The narrator says McCain has cut wasteful spending for more than 20 years, and “that is why Citizens Against Government Waste calls John McCain a tax payer hero.”
McCain is seen with President Regan, a fiscal conservative. We get another picture of McCain from a low camera angle with the flag in the background. The music is increasingly uplifting. Other, similar images of McCain appear.
The ad ends with a Woodstock crowd. The sharp colors give way to an antique hue, adding distance between the viewer and Woodstock. The cover of a recognizable soundtrack produced in 1969 flies into view. It opens, and the record itself rotates, flying toward the viewer. The narrator’s words: “John McCain says, if you want to relive Woodstock, buy the record.”
As the record fills the screen, one final rotation brings us a close-up of a talking, smiling McCain in full color. It is immediate and personal. The word “record” – and the image of one – plays on the ad’s central theme: a comparison between his and Clinton’s voting record concerning taxpayers’ dollars.
Fact Check
McCain is rated as a tax payer “hero” by the Citizens Against Government Waste, with an 88 percent lifetime approval rating, and a 95 percent rating in 2006. Clinton’s lifetime rating is 10 percent, and 14 percent in 2006.
An analysis of data supplied by Taxpayers for Common Sense shows stark contrast between their earmark habits. In 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, Clinton’s name appears in support of over $900 billion worth of earmark proposals; though the vast majority are not proposals she introduced and include supporters from both sides of the isle. However, McCain’s name is attached to none.
“Senator McCain doesn’t play that game,” Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said.
Clinton argued the earmark for the Woodstock museum was meant to increase tourism, an argument not noted in the ad. The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats use earmarks for similar projects.
Facts damaging to Clinton were omitted. Days after attaching the earmark, Allen Gerry, the wealthy backer of the museum, gave Clinton’s presidential campaign $9,200 and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $20,000.
Other relevant omissions are the Republican candidates McCain is running against. He sets himself up as the frontrunner in the Republican primary, and as stronger than the leading Democratic candidate on fiscal responsibility, an issue that is of primary concern to many voters.
Neither McCain of Clinton’s campaign responded to phone or e-mail messages.
You can view the ad on You Tube or in the video player on this page.
Ethical Analysis
The ad passes ethical muster. The overt statements are true. However, the subtle use of sound, color, images, and symbolic cues are potentially misleading. For example, McCain is presented in a more personal manner. Is McCain more personal or more of a person? I don’t think so. I will discuss the subtle, misleading claims and whether they cross ethical lines.
“Woodstock” doesn’t treat Clinton harshly compared to other political ads. Kant’s categorical imperative suggests that actions are not excused by the actions of peers. Indeed, to judge a political ads’ ethical grounding on a relativistic perspective leaves dangerously few restrictions. However, when we consider the stakes of the presidential election and the expectation of hardball politics, the relativistic perspective should play some role. To limit the relativistic role, we should also consider the stakeholders.
“Woodstock” should be read in the context of political campaign communication, taking into account what is at stake and for whom.
These considerations help fill in the Potter Box. The definition is political communication within the context of other political communication. Values include the desire to win and effect the change the candidate believes necessary. The principles include the democratic process, but also the endgame of putting the candidate in office. The strongest principle in the context of self-promotion is the candidate, but conflict arises when the ideal of the democratic process comes into play. Both the voter and the other candidate must be considered. Unqualified consideration of these stakeholders may not lead to the most effective ad (swift-boating works), but it will help maintain the ideal of an informed voter.
The three primary stakeholders are McCain, Clinton, and the viewers/voters.
McCain, presumably, believes he is the best candidate. The application process, as McCain experienced in 2000, can invoke slander. Also, candidates compete for limited airtime. Since any candidate could experience what McCain did in 2000, and it is difficult to distinguish oneself in 30 seconds, it follows that a candidate must permit a certain amount of fudging in their ads to be a viable candidate. This doesn’t excuse factual inaccuracies, but in “Woodstock” the fudging takes place at the corners of the message.
Clinton, another stakeholder, is ethically portrayed in the context of political ads. Her record is accurately explained, and more damaging facts were omitted. The music and her image sets a negative, impersonal tone compared to how McCain is represented. But again, the limitation and expectation of political ads grants this license when we consider what is at stake. Also, the ad was created early in the campaign cycle, giving Clinton plenty of time to respond to McCain and for the voters.
When we consider citizens as stakeholders, it is easy to jump to the ethical standard set by John Rawls. An informed voter is necessary for a participatory democracy. The veil of ignorance must be lifted for an informed decision. But Rawls’ veil of ignorance isn’t an appropriate standard for political ads analyzed for its visual, auditory, and symbolic content. Fully honest political communication can’t occur given the constraints set by available forums and the attacks levied by a few: if McCain swore off potentially misleading visual, auditory and symbolic cues, he couldn’t become president. People’s voting patterns respond to false attack ads. Such ads might have greater relative impact, if all other ads were held to the highest ethical standard. In presidential politics, the nice guy cannot win. Therefore, a candidate must find ways to distinguish herself, be remembered, and impart an impression so that a participatory democratic process can occur.
The most helpful ethical guideline for political ads is Aristotle’s mean. McCain found it. The ad is forceful and effective in distinguishing himself and his opponent in a memorable way, without approaching temerity. He struck a balance between getting his message out and treating the other stakeholders with fairness and respect in the context of political communication.
__________________________
