The paranoid style in American politics is always present, but it waxes and wanes. We're currently in a waning period, but it certainly hasn't waned as much as it has in the past.
Here is a 1984 ad from the Reagan-Bush campaign. It's about the Soviet threat, and aims to convince voters that the Reagan Administration has the correct approach.
To a modern viewer, this half-century old ad appears moderate, reasonable, and as intelligent as one would expect for a 30-second piece. It bases its argument on prudence against a potential threat, and clearly states what the admakers believe an adequate insurance policy to be. Contrast with this from the 2004 campaign:
A lie, an information-free bit of "contextual" information (six billion dollars!), an aversion, and a mention of an unspecified wolf-like program related activity that will presumably eat your children. It's quite horrible, and it's quite horrifying that the Bush-Cheney campaign believed such ads would be effective.
How the Clinton ad stacks up, then, depends on your point of comparison. As paranoid ads go, it's awful pandering compared to the artful 1984 ad that plays upon concrete fears with real prudence. But compared to the 2004 slanderous cesspool of a piece, it's quite mild. On the other hand, the Obama campaign's response manages to mock the whole paranoid trope while going to a whole new level of concrete in a 30-second spot. Go below and see for yourself.
Here's the Obama campaign's response:
What do you think?
Well most of the women back then were certainly so much Nicer with a very Good Personality as well compared to today. Quite a change today unfortunately. Ouch.
Posted by: This Is Why Many Of Us Good Men Are Still Single Today | January 08, 2017 at 09:10 AM