If you are like me, throughout the past week, social media has been dim. With the onslaught of attack ads for this upcoming midterm elections, fear and hate have been used as devices to steer people towards the polls. But why is that and where did this begin?
The reason for which political outrage is woven into our politics is simple, because it works. Anger and fear work because they capture attention, strengthen group identities, and motivate political participation. These are the reasons why we see these ads for an entire month every two years. What is interesting to me is that attack ads take advantage of our human psychology, essentially forcing us to react to them. We, humans, pay additional attention to threats compared to other signals. So politicians that push out ads in favor of themselves rather than ads against others, generally won’t receive the same reception and impact that attack ads have.
Although attack ads are very common and are seeing a unique insurgence, they tie all the way back to ancient politics. In ancient Greece and Rome, political rhetoric included appealing to the fears of the audience. Famously, Aristotle examined emotions of anger and their causes. The printing press further pushed the use of anger and fear in political media. By having a larger reach, political pamphlets helped communicate grievances and spark fear into voters. The 20th century saw the rise of technology within media. Television and radio included political coverage which contained some outrage, but none of these previous examples captures the rise of affective polarization within the 1990s and 2000s. Although polarization existed before, nowadays, political disagreements are intertwined with social identity. Party lines grew more divisive, with people viewing their own party more positively and the opposing one more negatively. Previously, we seen more of something called “ideological polarization” which is disagreements about policies; in the early 21st century, we began to see affective polarization, which is the notion that we dislike those of the opposing party. Thus pushing partisanship and further dividing politics.
Throughout the history of political outrage, it becomes more evident that anger caused more division as media networks grew in size. This analysis should be applied to the future of politics. If the media’s reach continues to grow, it wouldn’t be odd to predict that attack ads would also reach more people and become more fierce as they do so. But to us, partisan politics isn’t something new. So where do we go from here?
For me, the frustrating thing about attack ads is that they shift the attention of the voter from a “who should I vote for” to a “who should I not support”. This difference is part of the reason why recent elections feel as if we should be deciding between the lesser of evils. We truly don’t get to vote for what we want; instead, we vote against what we don’t.
This week’s addition of The Readership is, in part, inspired by tomorrow’s elections. Earlier this week, I watched a politician get questioned on why he deserves the votes of his constituents and how he plans to solve their problems. He responded by saying something along the lines of, firstly, people should vote because not voting won’t solve any of their problems; secondly, compare the two options (sometimes more) based on record. This sentiment is something I couldn’t agree with more. For those of you that can vote, VOTE! Through the attack ads, messaging, and other forms of advertisements, don’t lose the plot; those elected should have the sole purpose of making life easier for you.