I was assigned the presidential ads from 1980, during the election between Reagan and Carter. I immediately noticed strong differences between the two candidate’s campaigns. After watching the series of Reagan videos, I noticed strong themes of economic prosperity, inflation, taxes, and Reagan’s position as governor. His campaign was centered around the failure of Carter and how things could change under his leadership.

In contrast, Carter’s campaign played heavily on his deep southern roots and faith in order to appeal to voters. His reelection campaign utilized fewer attacks against Reagan than Reagan’s campaign used against him, instead trying to appeal to voters emotions more than practical side, portraying him as a “Man of Peace” but also an “army man.” His campaign did not focus on goals or actions or changes, but about who he was as a person in order to make voters feel more connected to him. In some ways this is positive, but for it lacked a sense legitimacy that Reagan offered in his campaign videos.

In watching ads for both candidates, it brought me back to the thought process that people who hear vs. see a debate might have different opinions on who was more “presidential.” Despite knowing credentials or legitimacy, some people look more official or more capable than others, which can often mislead us. We have certain physical traits we look for in a leader, that we have grown to associate with leadership because of the societies we used to live in. For example, in small-scale early societies we needed leaders who were physically more capable. However, in today’s society in which we are at less of a risk of engaging in physical conflict and we often require more intellect, our “lizard brains” can mislead us to be drawn towards leaders, and oftentimes candidates, who are more physically appealing, regardless of their capability.