A slew of attack ads aimed at contending candidates paved the path to Governor-Elect Bobby Jindal’s victory.
Despite Walter Boasso’s “Shame on You, Bobby Jindal” series, John Georges’ claims of broken verbal agreements and other jabs at Jindal, the state representative gathered 54 percent of votes, winning the Governor’s seat and overturning the Democrats’ power in the capitol.
While political advertisements are necessary to introduce candidates to the public, their usefulness stops at the polls. Negative advertisements do not hinder voter turnout.
Historically, after listening to powerful television spots and relentless campaigners, voters’ viewpoints aren’t changed, only reinforced.
In an effort to turn from Louisiana’s corrupt and unsatisfactory political past, largely Democratic communities and on-the-fencers shifted their support to the conservative and inefficient Jindal, who makes bold promises for Louisiana’s future. Perhaps these promises influenced Jindal’s win, or his supporters were unhappy with Blanco and wish they had voted for him in 2004.
Regime change aside, voters ultimately put their faith in a hope for something better rather than an investment in the status quo: high-powered business leaders and old-school politicians. Instead, Jindal represents a Louisiana struggling for an answer amidst Hurricane Katrina controversy, violent crime, failing schools, health care systems and other statewide uphill battles.
Instead of addressing these increasingly important issues, months of mudslinging through television and radio broadcasts limited political advertising content to misrepresenting opposing platforms by ripping out-of-context revelations from the headlines.
Time and money spent defending against false accusations could have been spent on informative commercials that may have actually allowed constituents to make reasoned judgments at the polls.
But candidates can’t rely on 30-second TV spots to present their opinions, views and platforms regarding issues that may take years beyond their potential tenure to fix. Candidates can’t spend airtime bogging down their voters with difficult ideas and complicated projects when they’re trying to keep their names from being dragged through the mud.
What candidates rely on is the quick-and-easy fix that attack ads provide – question the opponent’s legitimacy in order to boost your own, and at the same time create an illusion of a problem that is immediately solved. The perception among the public seems to be: How can the opponent expect to run the state if they’re unable to defend themselves or their credibility?
This inflection may foreshadow the upcoming presidential elections, but heavy-handed ad campaigns may ruin the path for progressive leaders and voters looking for a way out from our presidential train wreck.
