Favorite 1996 Presidential Campaign Ad Blog Post

I was assigned to watch the ads on The Living Room Candidate for 1996, the year of the Clinton vs. Dole election. This was so interesting to watch and compare to the presidential campaign ads of today; they are not too much different, but they are also poorer image/sound quality and use terms that we don’t consider “politically correct” today (e.g., the term “illegal alien”). Of all the ads I watched, both from the Democrat and Republican sides of 1996 presidential campaigns, the Democrat ad entitled “Surgeon” was my favorite to watch and analyze. This ad utilized children to create an emotional appeal, by asking what they want to be when they grow up. Four children–of different genders and races–responded with a civil engineer, astronaut, orthopedic surgeon, and an airplane pilot. This emotional appeal with children then transitions into the ad explaining how President Clinton wants to create educational opportunities for children, and he will provide a $1,500 tuition tax credit and a $10,000 tuition tax deductible. Thus, most community colleges would be free and all colleges would become more affordable. Following this information–that is all presented in color–the ad transitions into accusing Dole-Gingrich of wanting to cut college scholarships and eliminate the Department of Education, which is presented in black and white. Lastly, one more young boy says he wants to find a cure for cancer, and President Clinton will help him reach that place of educational opportunity.

I thought this presidential campaign commercial for 1996 was so interesting through its utilization of children to make a statement about education reform. I can imagine how parents, who wanted their children to attend college, watching this ad would be led to believe Clinton would be the right candidate for their situation. Also, when the ad transitions from color and then to black and white when Dole-Gringrich is shown, I think that automatically creates a negative association with him for consumers of the ad. It is very interesting how colors and sounds can have that effect on people watching the ad, even when they do not realize it. As the years have continued, there has been an ethical debate about using kids and minors in ads. In the journal article, “Scenes from the Political Playground: An Analysis of the Symbolic Use of Children in Presidential Campaign Advertising,” by Susan A. Sherr, the research found that children are often used in ads to address “economic insecurity, poverty, crime, war, and hope for the future” (Sherr, 2001). I found this to be an interesting way to analyze the Living Room Candidate ads, and I’d be interested in hearing whether any of your ads featured children? And, do you think this is ethical? Why or why not?

Journal Article: https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198767

2 thoughts on “Favorite 1996 Presidential Campaign Ad Blog Post

  1. Charlotte Moynihan

    A bunch of the ads I watched from 1984 featured children in order to create powerful emotional appeals. After watching and analyzing these, I’m not sure if any of them are truly ethical. The goal of any of these ads is to make a convincing appeal, and they will range from the threat of nuclear war to your child’s future in order to try to secure a vote.

  2. Nikhil Mehta

    I do not see what is unethical about using children in advertisements. As long as they are in the ad by their parent’s consent, they should be able to appear as actors in ads. In fact, because children cannot vote, raising awareness about issues that affect the future, especially the environment, is important. People should be forced to consider the things that affect people who are not able to vote, and children in advertisements is one way to do that.

Comments are closed.