Negative advertising works, is effective and may not even be all that evil, as far as modern campaigning goes. That's the gist of a great piece by Frank Rich in the New York magazine. It's also a message echoed in what might be the best book on modern American politics I've ever read, The Political Brain, by Drew Westen. Negative advertising tends to be more substantive and accurate than positive spots and increases the likelihood that voters recognize an election for what it is, a choice rather than a referendum.
So I'm going to take a stab at what Rich calls "the Nuclear Option" ad, a transformative, emotionally-appealing spot that will leave an indelible impression in the minds of swing voters.
First I want to say that I think the Obama campaign has done a pretty good job so far. They never ascribed to the silly and inaccurate notion that negative advertising doesn't work because polls say most people don't like it and they've taken a page from the Republican playbook by going after Romney's apparent strengths (see the Bain attacks and the Romney Economics ads). Nonetheless, I think they've so far neglected the line of attack with the most potential, the most emotional punch for their buck.
As I see it the problem is this. People know Barack Obama and they like him - they like him quite a bit better than Mitt Romney. But his campaign was based on raw hope, a kind of faith that a Messiah-like leader could more or less quickly bring about transformative change (in spite of Republican exaggerations and regardless of the campaign's intent, I think many supporters viewed his candidacy in this way). After four years most Americans are still struggling and many feel that the president has had his chance. They may not like Mitt Romney, they may not think compassion has been the driving force in his business career or life, but they know he was a successful business man (using the unfortunately dominant view of success in America, aka making boatloads of $$$$$). The Obama campaign can and should attempt to erode any belief that Romney is prepared to lead on the economy, but the president's performance will remain a hundred times more politically salient until November. The Romney campaign and it's dark money storm troopers will make sure people remember how little progress we've made on the economy and will portray Romney as a competent businessman who can guide us back to prosperity.
If this remains the Obama campaigns only line of attack directed at the general population of swing voters, my guess is the messages largely cancel each other out, with a slight edge going to either Romney or Obama depending on the economic news from now till November.
But there is another option, one that plays to Obama's strengths and leaves little room for an effective response. Someone needs to make an ad about Mitt Romney's values. Polls have shown that despite attacks on Romney Economics, voters till trust him over Obama to run the economy. However they consistently favor Obama when it comes to protecting and fighting for the middle class. My ad would turn the fear and frustration of swing voters against Romney by making it clear that hard times mean hard decisions and someone with Mitt Romney's values cannot be trusted to make the tough decisions that such times require.
It would go something like this:
The screen is black and a worried female voice asks "what are Mitt Romney's values?"
She continues: "President Obama and the American people are working hard to finish the job of restoring prosperity, but tough times mean tough decisions, and with a deficit of $x there will be many more tough decisions to come.
Cut to some clip showing Romney endorsement of the Paul Ryan Budget. Then cut to an elderly woman who says something like: "I rely on the Medicare I earned. Mitt Romney supports the Paul Ryan budget that would end medicare as we know it. Can I trust Mitt Romney to stand up for me?"
Cut to clip of Romney saying we should just let the mortgage crisis bottom out. Cut to young man next to his wife in front of their home. The man says: "banks made billions while people like us lost their first home, just when they got their foot in the middle class. Mitt Romney wants to do nothing. Can I trust him to stand up for people like me?"
Cut too clip of Romney talking about how he doesn't care about the very poor. Cut to middle aged white couple in their apartment. The woman says: "My husband and I lost our jobs through no fault of our own. Mitt Romney says he doesn't care. Should I believe him?"
Finally, cut to clip of Mitt Romney joking about how he was "unemployed." Cut to a woman who looks angry, even disturbed: "When Mitt Romney was 'unemployed' he made x millions of dollars. Does he really think being out of work is a joke?"
The screen fades to black and the narrator says: "We know what Mitt Romney's values are. Can we trust him to lead for all Americans?"
This line of attack reminds voters why they're uncomfortable with Mitt Romney. His career seems almost entirely self-serving, designed to acquire wealth and power for personal gain. He's eerily detached, almost non-human robotic - doesn't emotionally connect with people. They Romney campaign doesn't mind that his character seems somewhere between sterile and mean. As long as the election is just about the economy it won't matter. The Obama campaign must make take advantage of the blank slate that is Romney the person. It must make the election about values and the consequences of those values.
I might suggest pairing this kind of ad with one about Obama's values. One that stresses his courage in decisions like the Bin Laden raid, his commitment to public service and life devoted to it etc.
Some might fear that this kind of attack would lead conservatives to go no-holds-barred on Jeremiah Wright or other gross and likely and racially-tinged smear tactics. I don't think it matters. The Wright attack would have limited impact for the same reason Obama's attacks on Romney economics may - because Obama's presidency is and will remain the most politically salient part of his person until election day. Voters know that in spite of his connection to Wright he did not act as an extremist as president. Furthermore, the Wright attack would be quickly neutralized by an effective ad touting the presidents national-security credentials, including, of course, the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Thoughts?