This ad is a continuation of Romney’s primary campaign theme that he is a business-minded Republican who has achieved private and public sector success through strong leadership and a willingness to eliminate unnecessary spending. It makes no mention of current policy issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the rising tensions with Iran.
The ad’s primary visual element is of Romney jogging on a winding country road. Other visual elements include his wife speaking from a podium and Romney alone and with others while serving as a businessman, CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games and as governor of Massachusetts. The ad concludes with Romney sitting on the ground with his wife and infant child.
The ad ran extensively in Iowa and New Hampshire beginning Sept. 5. Two weeks later, it began airing in South Carolina.
The ad was paid for by Mitt Romney for President, Inc. Campaign finance reports show that Romney has raised $62.8 million, $17.3 million of which came from his own personal wealth in the form of candidate loans.
The ad makes the following direct claims:
Every place Mitt has gone he has solved problems people said were nearly impossible. Romney has enjoyed remarkable success in the private and public sectors. Media coverage supports this conclusion. However, the claim is exceptionally far-reaching. It’s unclear what people actually said about the situations he has supposedly solved.
Romney is an “innovator who created and revolutionized American businesses, (and) turned around major companies” (ad shows logos of Staples, Domino’s, Sports Authority, Brookstone and Sealy). Romney’s immense wealth supports the notion that he was successful as the CEO of Bain & Company and co-founder of Bain Capital. However, it’s unclear what innovations he employed to achieve the revolutions that brought about success.
He took on the bankrupt 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games and turned them around. It’s true that the Games were plagued by scandal and budget shortfalls before Romney took over as CEO. The New York Times reported on Romney’s “rescuing the 2002 Olympic Games, which had been tarnished by scandal.” The article from Sept. 19, 2007, goes on to say, “even Mr. Romney’s critics concede that the games - which had faced serious potential financial difficulties before his arrival - were a huge success…”
As the Republican governor of Massachusetts from 2002-06, he stood up and cut spending instead of raising taxes. Romney turned around our most Democratic state. This claim is true, but slightly misleading. Romney cut spending, but did so in part by reducing services to cities and towns, thus shifting the cost burden. And, while Romney didn’t raise taxes, he did raise $400 million by increasing fees and another $300 million by closing corporate loopholes, which the business community considered indirect taxation. In 2002, when Romney ran for the governorship of Massachusetts, he refused to sign a no-tax pledge, calling it “government by gimmickry.” The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, gave Romney a “C” in a recent Fiscal Policy Report.
Romney has the leadership to turn around Washington. While Romney has been effective in the past, it is unclear if he will be effective in Washington, particularly in its current bipartisan climate. Voters should know that he has no experience as a politician in Washington and may be unaccustomed to its procedures, a fact the ad fails to provide.
Visually, the ad establishes Romney as a vibrant, composed and effective leader. The running sequences comprise almost one-third of the 30-second ad. Except when running, Romney wears a suit throughout, possibly to appeal to business-minded voters. Each clip in the ad runs for approximately three seconds, with the exception of the six-second opening running sequence. The effect is energetic, and seems to imply that Romney stays very busy.
Four visual images stand out in the ad. The first is of Romney in front of a door with the word “Executive” above it. The apparent intention is to link him with executive power. Also, the camera is pointing upward, a photographic technique commonly used to portray a subject as powerful. The second image is of Romney on a stage pointing downward at the word “spending” on a poster. It appears he’s teaching a class on how to run a Republican government. The third image shows a solemn Romney signing what appears to be legislation. The effect is that he is an agent of change. The fourth image is of Romney with his wife and infant child. It conveys his value of family and his level of energy to help raise a young child.
The music in the ad is an up-tempo instrumental with no bass. It runs throughout the ad and has an inspirational feeling. Romney’s wife narrates the first section of the ad, suggesting their marriage is sound. A male voice speaks throughout the rest of the ad, conveying earnestness reminiscent of a movie promotion.
An e-mail with full text of the above reporting was sent to Romney’s campaign Web site on Nov. 6, 2007. No response has been received.
To ethically justify this ad, the TARES test will be used, where T stands for truthfulness, A for authenticity, R for respect, E for equity and S for social responsibility (Patterson 2002). Bok’s requirements for justification will also be used to put Romney’s slightly misleading comments in the context of accepted behavior in a political campaign (1978). Rawl’s “Veil of Ignorance” will be used briefly to underscore the equity portion of the TARES test.
The claims in Romney’s ad, both verbal and visual, are truthful. His business acumen is well-documented, and he did not raise taxes while serving as governor of Massachusetts. However, the ad fails to explain how he solved the state’s budget crisis. A reasonable person would accept the lack of further explanation within the context of a campaign ad. The omission is not overtly deceptive.
The ad passes the test of authenticity in that it offers a candidate who claims to have solutions for America’s pressing issues of debt and overspending. Romney has made a career of improving business operations and appears to have a sincere desire to apply that skill to the Federal Government.
The ad meets the test’s third requirement, respect, largely because it never appeals to the television viewer. It’s more of an annotated resume for Romney that presents a body of information the public is free to accept or disregard. I imagine Romney and his campaign staff would take full responsibility for the content of the ad.
Viewers would not have to be abnormally well-informed to understand this ad. It is simple and lacks jargon or complicated language and, therefore, is equitable. Placing the whole of television viewership behind Rawl’s “Veil of Ignorance” should not produce any notable discrepancies in interpretation.
The ad is socially responsible because if Romney delivers what he promises, economic success, society would benefit. However, the ad fails to explain specifically how he would do this, largely because television ads rely on visuals more than statements of policy. Again, this vagueness would fall under Bok’s accepted justifications of what a reasonable person might expect, particularly in light of the medium of television and accepted campaign practices.
This ad is ethical because it provides a clear representation of candidate goals and priorities without relying on deception. The voting public is free to make an informed decision.
__________________________
