Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made waves with “Ocean,” a TV ad in which he refers to the rising tide of violence, pornography and drugs as a cultural cesspool and declares his intention to “clean up the water in which our kids are swimming.”
The 60-second spot, paid for by the Romney campaign, began airing in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in mid-July. It begins with a montage of waves in sepia tones as Romney declares, “I am deeply troubled about the culture that surrounds our kids today.” Romney’s voice over is set to a soft piano background.
The waves become choppier as Romney references an opinion piece written by Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan shortly after the Columbine shootings in 1999. Quoting Noonan, Romney says the boys responsible for the deadly Colorado high school rampage had “inhaled too deeply in the oceans in which they swam.”
Two children and a dog are seen playing along the shoreline as Romney expresses his desire to fight the evils in popular entertainment. Finally, the sepia tones give way to an image of clear, blue water as Romney says, “We can actually do a great deal to clean up the water in which our kids and our grandkids are swimming.” The ad closes with a shot of Romney playing with his grandchildren, the only time he is pictured.
The music and visuals work in concert with the words to deliver a powerful message. The sepia tones suggest that the waters are toxic and menacing, and the images of children at play appeal to voters’ desire to protect youngsters from harm. The music is slow and somber when Romney quotes Noonan’s attack on popular culture, but the pace quickens when he expresses optimism that progress can be made. Romney’s voiceover is delivered slowly, with frequent pauses, to underscore its seriousness.
The ad is perhaps as notable for what is omitted as for what is actually said. Romney makes no reference to any of the other candidates, nor does he offer any proposals to clean up the culture. Some critics have noted that a president might be better equipped to clean up the real oceans than the metaphorical ones.
Alex Burgos, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, acknowledged that the ad is light on details, but he insisted that “Governor Romney has the policy proposals to lay out how we go about accomplishing those goals.” For example, he cited Romney’s “one strike, you’re ours” proposal, which would impose mandatory jail time for Internet sex predators, followed by lifetime tracking via global-positioning devices.
Although the ad quotes Noonan, it does not tell viewers who she is. Many voters might not recognize the name, but “Reagan conservatives” will instantly remember her as a speechwriter for the former president. The ad appears designed to ease lingering doubts about the former Massachusetts governor’s conservative status and bolster his standing among the Republican Party’s evangelical wing.
Burgos said the text of the ad was derived from a speech that Romney gave in April to the Frontiers of Freedom Institute during the conservative think tank’s Ronald Reagan Gala. He said Romney hopes to appeal to three groups of conservative voters: defense conservatives, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.
“Only a nominee who can unite all three groups can be successful in the general election,” Burgos said.
The ad omits one particularly noteworthy excerpt from Noonan’s 1999 column. Although no fan of Hillary Clinton, Noonan suggested, albeit somewhat sarcastically, that the then-first lady might be able to lead the fight against cultural pollution: “All the big media people, the owners and anchors, the studio heads and producers, the creators and disseminators, they all admire her. They support her. She could talk to them. She could ignite a ‘national conversation.’ She could get tough. She could take names.”
Ethical evaluation
On one level, the ad can be seen as a simple statement of Romney’s desire to fight cultural rot. However, in the context of a presidential campaign, every word and image is chosen for maximum political effect. Even though the ad does not mention other candidates, its purpose is to convince voters that Romney is the best choice to clean up the “ocean.” The reference to the Columbine shootings represents a fear appeal, suggesting that choosing the “wrong” candidate might lead to bloodshed.
Kant would find fault with such attempts to manipulate emotions and use voters as means to political victory, while a utilitarian might permit even the most manipulative of political ads as long as they produce desirable results. The Potter Box and the TARES test offer a more balanced method of ethical evaluation.
Turning to the second quadrant of the Potter Box, the core value is productive political discourse and decision-making. Political ads can give voters the information they need to distinguish among candidates and make intelligent choices. At the same time, however, the values of fairness and dignity come into play. Candidates should respect the humanity of voters, their political allies and their opponents. Looking at the fourth quadrant of loyalties, a political ad ought to reflect the candidate’s loyalty to the voting public, the people and events cited in the ad, and the candidate’s own personal and political beliefs.
The “Ocean” ad comes up short in the first prong of the TARES test: truthfulness. Although the ad contains no lies, it fails to provide voters with enough information to make intelligent choices. By not mentioning any policy proposals, describing Romney’s political record on cultural issues, or making any comparisons to other candidates, the ad leaves viewers with an empty feeling. Although the ad speaks to Romney’s personal convictions, it is hard to imagine any candidate who would not share those views. No candidate would favor exposing children to more sex, drugs and violence.
The ad’s authenticity is harder to judge. The ad seems to suggest that the Columbine shootings resulted largely from the corrupting influence of video games and other popular entertainment. Although that view is shared by many, others would argue that it unfairly stereotypes avid video game players or fans of “shock” rock as unstable misfits. Deeper psychological factors undoubtedly contributed to the Columbine massacre, factors that cannot be overcome by Internet filters or tougher video game rating systems.
The ad satisfies the respect principle because Romney takes full public responsibility for the ad. He voices the ad himself and, in accordance with federal law, tells viewers that he approved the message.
The ad flunks the equity principle because it assumes inequity between the persuader and persuadee. The ad fails to say who Peggy Noonan is, and it counts on viewers not knowing the full context of Noonan’s column, in which she offers some begrudging support for her political enemies and suggests that fixing the culture transcends politics. For example, Noonan praised Rosie O’Donnell for “at least trying to come up with an answer” after O’Donnell advocated tougher gun control following the Columbine incident.
The ad passes the social responsibility test because Romney does appear genuinely concerned about the welfare of society. Only the most callous political observer would doubt his desire to protect children from moral decay.
Because Romney’s ad fails to meet at least two principles of the TARES test, it cannot be judged as ethically sound. It digs up an eight-year-old national tragedy and plays with viewers’ emotions, then ultimately betrays those viewers by failing to give them the details and the context they deserve to make an informed voting decision.
__________________________
