Abigail Swihart
Political Communications
Dr. Robert Bond
February 26th, 2015
Political Advertisements

1992 Presidential Election Campaigns - Bush vs. Clinton

During the 1992 presidential election, most of the advertisements were intended to portray the core values of the average American. Both George H. Bush and Bill Clinton attempted to portray patriotism and a deep sense of American pride within their campaigns making the economy one of the key topics of this election. But only one of them seemed to be successful. When analyzing their ad campaigns, it is important to take a look at the historical context of their ad campaigns and how the relate to their platform, public opinion and the times the ads were released. During the 1992 campaign season, George H. Bush was the current president and had lost some popularity due to the economic down turn and recession. At the time, Bush was known for his strengths in foreign policy; the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War were both accomplished under his first term. However, Bush’s strength in foreign policy was not as important as the economy, in the eyes of the American people. Also, around this time, Bush had lost a lot of support from those in the Republican Party because he said he would not raise taxes in the previous election and then did in fact, raise them. In the beginning stages of the election, President Bush was in the lead, but as the election went on, his popularity declined. Bill Clinton came from a very different situation than George H. Bush. Not only was Bush the incumbent in office, but he also was the third Republican candidate in a row to be elected for presidency. Clinton won the plurality in the popular vote and the Electoral College (Leip, D., 2012). When Bill Clinton won the election, it was a significant win for the Democratic Party and a big realignment for politics in the United States. According to Electoral Choices and Core Value Change, citizens that backed Bill Clinton were more committed to egalitarianism and less attached to moral traditionalism. The reverse was true when President Bush was running for president. I think that this makes sense because citizens at the time seemed to want a stronger economy and welfare system for those who cannot work. This also seems to coincide with middle class concerns; working, economy and equality for all. George H. Bush’s “Favor Rev 1” presidential ad campaign, focused primarily on the issues of the current Welfare system and how it was doing any injustice to the current citizens living on that system. The focus seemed to be very serious that he wanted welfare to be reformed and he seemed to believe that everyone should be able to work for the American dream. Bush even goes on to say that the current welfare recipients should not have their dignity “stripped from them”, this comment could have been offensive to some of the voters that were on welfare at the time. I think Bush’s intentions for this ad campaign were very honest and true, but it did not focus on what the American people wanted to hear. There was no imagery, no story to follow and basically just the image of George H. Bush just lecturing through the TV that he wanted to reform welfare. It really felt unemotional, scripted and almost cold. Economy was a main concern at the time and this ad campaign did not address it. He could have even touched on how welfare reform could have improved the American economy, but he really just focused on how he did not like the current welfare system and that he wanted to change it, he did not even go into detail on how he was going to change it. My perception of this advertisement felt like it was a parent lecturing me about a welfare without any content or data to back up his beliefs. Another Bush commercial that bush aired was the “Guess” campaign. It focused on Bill Clinton’s time in Arkansas and how he will raise taxes on the US to make more money. This ad campaign that Bush’s camp aired really only focused on what Bill Clinton was doing to taxes in Arkansas and that he would do it with the Federal Government as well. I find this ad very interesting because George H. Bush was widely criticized for raising taxes when he said in a previous election that he wouldn’t, yet he can criticize Bill Clinton for raising taxes during his time in Arkansas. This commercial had really fast paced music and quick segmented video clips which really amplified the fact that Bush’s camp was poking fun at the spending habits of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party. Another aspect of the music was mostly banjo and blue grass genre which could by symbolizing the average American. One last concept I noticed in this campaign was the use of American symbolism; tourism, beer and cable subscription taxes. All of those things can really affect middle class workers. In some ways, this could possibly show George Bush’s views on the economy but in no direct way does he ever address the economic down turn. It could be argued that all this commercial does is point fingers at Clinton without taking any responsibility for his own actions. This ad may be effective due to its quick paced nature and somewhat emotional appeal that it has to the viewers and the middle class. “Leaders 2” was an ad ran by the Clinton and Gore campaign that really focused on the Democratic Party’s reformation. The commercial talks about how the Democratic Party has new ideas and values; support of the death penalty, welfare reform, and cuts in spending. All of these aspects can appeal to republicans who might have lost faith in George H. Bush after his first term as President. There is an emotional appeal throughout this commercial with music, imagery and patriotism that can potentially really persuade voters to his side. Video clips of Clinton delivering a speech, shaking hands with citizens, and all his voters cheering him on really displays a sense of patriotism and authority. I think the main point of this commercial was to show the republican voters that the “new” democratic generation can align with their values and they can agree on some important political topics of the time. The last main point in the commercial was that they would cut $140 million dollars from the budget which contradicts Bush’s campaign that says he would add $220 billion dollars to the budget. This last point can maybe be seen as Clinton’s way of helping the economy, but nothing really is said directly about the economic downturn. This ad seems to be effective due to the fact that Clinton really tries hard to align with the republican voters that may not have been impressed with Bush’s first term. Clinton aired an attack advertisement called “Scary” which attacked the attack ads being ran about him. This advertisement uses quotes from the Washington Post and The Wall Street which can be seen as very reliable sources, however it can also seem skeptical as to what articles and what context these quotes were taken from. The quotes are really small and it does not give credit to what article it was taken from so that definitely stuck out to me. Another important part of this ad focuses on the tax issue with Bush contradicting himself in his first term. This ad campaign directly attacks the fact that Bush went back on his word and has been advertising false information. It even goes as far to say “nothing is scarier than four more years”, which is a very bold statement but creates a gaffe is Clinton’s favor. I found this really interesting because I had never seen an attack ad attacking another attack ad, but I found it quite effective. According

to The Living Room Candidate, this ad was ran late in 1992 and I think it was an effective attack ad because it was ran later in the campaign which is usually effective because it is right before the election. The American voters at the time were primarily concerned with the economy during the 1992 presidential election. According to the American Political Science Review (Dalton, R., 1998), perception of the information is shaped as much by an individual’s political views as by the objective content. I think that this relates to these advertisements really well because perception is everything to the voters watching these advertisements. Some viewers may have watched the Bush “Favor Rev 1” and thought that Bush was brilliant, whereas other may have watched it and thought he was cold hearted. While Bush seemed more to be serious and point fingers at Clinton, Clinton seemed to focus more on emotional appeals and persuasive technique to help demonstrate his view points. So I think that Clinton’s ad campaigns, Bush losing votes from Perot, Clinton’s new image that did not seem to be as democratic, and the perception of the people was what helped Clinton win the election. Other contributing factors could have been Bush’s unemotional commercial and un-persuasive techniques, as well as his choice to raise taxes after telling the American people he would not. According to Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election, it is mentioned that perceptions of the people really was what was most important in this election.

Sources:
Leip, D. (2012, January 1). 1992 Presidential General Election Results. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992

The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 1992 - Leaders 2. (n.d.). Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1992/

Russell J. Dalton, Paul A. Beck and Robert Huckfeldt (1998). Partisan Cues and the Media: Information Flows in the 1992 Presidential Election. American Political Science Review, 92, pp 111-126. Doi: 10.2307/2585932.

James A. McCann, American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 41, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp.564-583 Published by: Midwest Political Science Association, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111777

R. Michael Alvarez and Jonathan Nagler, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp. 714-744, Published by: Midwest Political Science Association, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2111651