Rough Draft of Politcs Essay

Political campaigns are about a dime a dozen. Many have the same features, and the same development. If the party wants a candidate to look good to the American voters, the advertisers will highlight the good qualities a particular candidate possesses. However, if it is the design of the advertisement is to make a candidate look bad the advertisers will highlight the flaws of that candidate. The reasoning behind this is simply to get more votes than the rivaling party. If a candidate can be portrayed as either right or wrong for certain reasons, it makes all voters despite their voting background vote one way. Such is the case for the political advertisement against Jeff Flake entitled, “Jeff Flake’s Out of Touch, Extreme Record is Wrong for Arizona.” The makers of this political attack advertisement used many popular cultural beliefs and values embedded in American society to further the effectiveness of the idea that Jeff Flake would be the “wrong” choice for Arizona for voters of both liberal and conservative views.

            The advertisement does this by targeting key topics that transcend the lines of political affiliation. For instance, in the video it states that Jeff Flake voted against funding for child abuse prevention. Despite what political affiliation a person may have, all people are expected by popular cultural values to believe that child abuse prevention is important. With this in mind, this political attack advertisement challenges people to still want to vote for a person who voted against protecting innocent children from abuse. It plays off of the pathos of parents, grandparents, and others to seek for another candidate that will vote in favor of protecting children. Highlighting that Jeff Flake voted against funding child abuse prevention implies that Jeff Flake does not care about standing up for children and protecting them. Further denying a cultural belief embedded into society to correct wrongs by being a voice of change. The advertisement continues and points out that Jeff Flake has voted against college aid. Showing the audience that he does not care if people are able to be educated, leading them to find the candidate that will vote for those particular groups to have their voices heard because, as implied by the actions of Jeff Flake, he will not vote for what the voters want and need.

            Unfortunately for Jeff Flake and his campaigners, the political attack continues alarm many other people by the content of the advertisement, “Flake voted against bulletproof vests for local police.” Safety is a big cultural belief. Americans believe in the right to be safe in many forms. As people, want to be guaranteed safety, and this is through the ability that local policemen have to fully perform their duties as public defenders. However, this value is something that it seems that Jeff Flake does not believe in the way the American people do. As portrayed in the attack, a vote for Flake is a vote for less safety because the policemen ensuring safety will not be as protected as they could be. Overall safety is an issue that popular values instill in Americans to allow for the most protection available to those who ensure societal safety. This idea continues into the next issue of the attack is that Flake voted against the GI bill for veterans. Every attack targets different and special group’s interests, such as the interests of those who have served the country being supported by the country to be able to support them after they served the country. Here, Flake is shown as not being loyal to those who have loyally serving the country. The attack implicitly targets Flake’s credibility to be loyal to those who vote for him.