Thanks in part to YouTube, Election 2006 has seen a few local
campaign ads hit the national spotlight. There’s the Michael J. Fox
controversy, the Democrat called out on accidentally phoning a sex line —
and most interestingly, the attack on Harold Ford Jr. from Tennessee.
The Republicans’ case against Ford goes back to a February 8, 2005 story in the
Washington insider paper Roll Call. According to a gossip
column, the politician attended a Super Bowl party hosted by
Playboy magazine, complete with the trademark
scantily-clad “bunnies.” Ford initially denied it but finally
confessed Tuesday.
A few days earlier, the Republican National Committee brought
out a “pro-Ford” TV ad, which late yesterday it pulled
because it had “run its course.”
In the ad, a hunter remarks, “Ford’s right. I do have too many
guns.” And a white woman squeals, “I met Harold at the Playboy
party!” At the end of the spot she wags her hand near her
cheek, pinkie and thumb extended, says “Harold, call me” and
winks.
Ford is black, and his supporters have alleged the spot plays on fears of black-white
miscegenation. On close consideration, however, that charge is
illogical.
Some context for the race is necessary. Ford’s off-duty life is
not beside the point — as he’d like us to believe — if a recent USA
Today/Gallup poll is any indication. The organizations
recently called registered voters from the state, asking why they
picked the candidate they favored.
If one adds up all the reasons a Playboy event
appearance could affect (“like him,” “honest/moral/has integrity,”
“don’t like opponent,” “moral values issues” and “opponent
dishonest/immoral/lacks character”), 27 percent of registered
voters find candidates’ lifestyles important.
And in the ad, there’s more to the values charge than six
seconds of a ditzy white woman. For example, a sleazy-looking guy
at one point remarks, “so he took money from porn producers. I
mean, who hasn’t?” Morality is a strong undercurrent to the
argument, not an excuse to imply race mixing.
The commercial deals with some other issue positions as well (19
percent of registered voters care, according to USA
Today/Gallup), from taxes to terrorists needing “their
privacy.” In the end, the commercial simply hits on the topics most
important to Tennesseans, mentioning twice but not quite dwelling
on Ford’s party with the Playmates.
So, for purely political reasons, the Republicans had to go
after Ford’s slip-up. But why use a white woman when the “racism!”
charge is anything but uncommon during election season?
Well, look at the alternatives. They could have ditched the
“mock pro-Ford ad” idea completely and done the standard voiceover.
This would have avoided the racism charge, but it wouldn’t have
been as effective at grabbing viewers’ attention. Both parties are
in desperation mode, with the election approaching and both houses
up for grabs, so foregoing creativity (and yes, some tackiness) isn’t an option.
Or, they could have used a black or Hispanic actress for the
role. But a GOP ad with a minority Playboy floozy would be
worse for PR than Mark Foley’s laptop was.
All of that said, let’s assume for a second that the ad really
does target racists. Those Tennessee hicks’ll buy into it, right?
Isn’t there a good case this was just cold, hard, and
calculating?
If it was, it wasn’t a very accurate calculation. In 2004, the
Pew Research Center conducted a poll on interracial dating. Southern whites did lag
behind the rest of the nation in saying it’s okay — 59 percent to
78 percent of non-Southern whites — but a clear majority still
approves. Another Pew Survey showed that 22 percent of Southerners have close
relatives in interracial relationships. And about 17 percent of
Tennesseans are black themselves, according to the 2004 Census (though some blacks too
oppose interracial dating).
Appealing to a prejudice shared by less than half your target
audience is just dumb. Such a move would likely lose more votes
than it wins.
Finally, Ford probably did himself the most harm by lying.
Tennessee residents care about morals, but they don’t require
sainthood. Indeed, the place seems
to have its fair share of Hooters restaurants.
A partier, in other words, they could have dealt with. A
lying partier, well, we’ll see.
