Johnson or Goldwater? Comparing Ads

            In recent years campaigning has become synonymous with the television attack ads and propaganda pictures appearing everywhere. The 2012 election has been hailed by some, including John Geer, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt, as “likely to be one of the most negative races since the advent of television”(Meacham). Obviously though, the idea of the attack ad has not always existed. The first, and to this day still one of the most infamous attack ads, was Lyndon B. Johnsons “Peace Little Girl” ad (Meacham). It is quite possible that this ad, which ran only once, had a huge impact on the landslide victory of Johnson over Barry Goldwater, and changed the landscape of the campaign ad atmosphere. I believe that Johnsons “Peace Little Girl” ad is a much more effective ad than Goldwater’s “Ike at Gettysburg” ad because at the time, the attack ad was a new concept, and it effectively preyed upon the public’s fear of nuclear war. To compare the two ads, I am going to use Nancy Woods “Eight Special Features of Visual Argument”, the seven common propaganda devices as described by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis.

            The 1960s was a very interesting generation. At the beginning of the 1960’s, the United States seemed to be on a steam roller headed to the golden age, but the various issues that rose up, including the Vietnam War and the assassination of President Kennedy, caused this golden age to never come. In 1964, after the United States had been having many problems in Vietnam, Congress allowed the president to do anything and everything he could to protect the US soldiers and allies from the Viet Cong. Shortly afterward the draft began, and the divisive issue split the nation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, giving many minorities the rights they had been fighting for, and at the same time, the hippie movement and student activist group grew. By 1968, the Tet Offensive convinced many Americans that we could not win the Vietnam war, Johnson ended his reelection campaign, Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, and urban riots were breaking out at increasing rates. The 1960s seemed to be a time where there was much to fear for the average citizen, and nuclear war was among these many fears(“The 1960s”).

            In Exploring Language, a book edited by Gary Goshgarian, a professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison and writer for many years, he includes an article by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis called “How to Detect Progaganda”. In this article, the institute lists 7 devices that one could use to identify propaganda. In my analysis of the commercials I will use only “The Transfer Device”, “The Glittering Generalities Device”, “The Testimonial Device”, and “The Band Wagon Device”. The Transfer Device, according to the institute, is “a device in which a propagandist tried to carry over authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept.”(Goshgarian). The Testimonial Device is a device in which the propagandist uses testimony to his advantage. The Glittering Generalities device in a device in which “the propagandist identifies his program with virtue by use of “virtue words””(Goshgarian). Lastly, the Band Wagon Device is a device which tries to say that because everyone else is going to do something, say vote for a certain president, you should do it also.

            The second group of devices I will use is Nancy Woods “Eight Special Features for Visual Argument”. Nancy Woods is an accomplished photographer and author, winning many awards such as the National Endowment for the Arts Grant for Literature, and even being nominated for a Pulitzer Prize(Wood). Out of her 8 devices, I will mostly use 3. Nancy Woods says that visual argument often evokes an emotional response. She also says that it can rely on juxtaposition of materials from radically different categories to make the viewer make connections. A third device she feels is important, is the use of icons to prompt a response from the viewer. Nancy Woods background in photography, and knowledge on the subject, makes her view on the effectiveness of visual media very trustworth.

            The “Peace Little Girl” ad was originally ran only once, on September 7 1964, during a broadcast of NBC’s Monday Night at the Movies. During the presidential campaign, Barry Goldwater, the conservative Republican candidate, said he approved of the use of tactical nuclear weapon use in Vietnam, and the Johnson campaign countered with the ad(Doyle). It opens with a young blond girl standing out in a field with the chirps of birds in the background, counting the petals on a daisy. The cute girl counts “One, two, three, four, five, seven, six, six, eight, nine, nine”, and is cut out by a man’s voice counting down “Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero”. When the count hits zero it goes from zooming into her eyes, to the sound of a giant explosion, and a video of a massive mushroom cloud. With the explosion still in the background, Lyndon Johnson’s voice comes in saying “These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God’s children can live. Or, to go into the darkness. We must either love each other… or we must die.”. After this chilling message, it cuts to a black screen with the words “Vote for President Johnson on November 3^rd. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.” (Advertisement-Peace Little Girl).The message that was meant to be conveyed to the viewers was that Goldwater could not be trusted with the power to unleash nuclear weapons, as he would be reckless, and quite literally, people would die. I feel that because of this ads use of  the “Band Wagon” device in making the viewers think that we are all in this together, and we must vote to keep from getting into a nuclear war, the effective juxtaposition of the little girl into the massive nuclear explosion, and the powerful emotional response invoked from the image, it is a very effective ad. The words that the ad use are also very effective in invoking an emotional response, especially the ultimatum proposed in “We must love either love each other… or we must die.” While this advertisement relies on almost purely pathos, I believe that it gets away with it for being a novel idea, and also portraying it effectively.

            The Barry Goldwater ad, “Ike at Gettysburg”, takes a very different approach to appealing to viewers. It opens up with a narrator saying “Senator Barry Goldwater, speaking to Dwight D. Eisenhower at Gettysburg.” This immediately tries to pull the viewer in with the “Transfer Device”, trying to transfer authority from the famous general Eisenhower, and also trying to gain credibility and appeal to viewers emotions by having the discussion at Gettysburg. Goldwater speaks to Eisenhower saying “We keep getting back to the subject of war and peace, and in this campaign that Congressman Bill Miller and I are engaged in- for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency - because we constantly stress the need for a strong America, our opponents are referring to us as warmongers, and I'd like to know what your opinion of that would be”. Eisenhower responds by saying “Well Barry, in my mind, this is actual tommyrot. Now, you've known about war; you've been through one. I'm older than you; I've been in more. But I'll tell you, no man that knows anything about war is going to be reckless about this.”, and the commercial ends with the narrator coming in to say “Vote for Barry Goldwater. In your heart you know he’s right”(Advertisement – Ike at Gettysburg). I feel personally that this advertisement was not as effective as the Peace Little Girl ad, because while it employed the use of an iconic figure and place in Eisenhower and Gettysburg, and the “Testimonial Device” from Eisenhower, its message was simply that “no man that knows anything about war is going to be reckless about this.” It fails to use glittering generalities to make Senator Goldwater seem like a man we would wish to vote for, and seems to just try to point out that “Goldwater is not that bad, Eisenhower says he is okay”. The tone of the commercial also seems very laidback when compared to the Peace Little Girl commercial.

            Whenever the “Peace Little Girl” commercial and the “Ike at Gettysburg” commercials are compared, it becomes apparent that because of Peace Little Girls very effective appeal to pathos, the Peace Little Girl ad is more compelling. It has a much more urgent tone, and uses very concrete language to get the viewer pulled in. The juxtaposition of a little girl with a nuclear explosion was a very frightening image, and seems to be much more effective than the moderate testimony of General Eisenhower. The “Ike at Gettysburg” ad does have greater appeal to ethos, but because of the execution and diction used, especially with saying “no man… is going to be reckless”, instead of a more solid “Senator Goldwater is not reckless”,  the ad falls behind in effectiveness. Upon looking at the ads closely, I believe it is safe to say that “Peace Little Girl” had the potential to be much more effective than “Ike at Gettysburg”.

Works Cited

Advertisement. The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 1964 - Peace Little Girl (Daisy). N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy>.

Advertisement. The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 1964 - Ike at Gettysburg. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/ike-at-gettysburg>.

Daly, Michael. "A Grown 'Daisy Girl' Recalls Her Infamous Attack Ad." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/18/a-grown-daisy-girl-recalls-her-infamous-attack-ad.html>.

Doyle, Jack. "The Pop History Dig » “LBJ’s Atomic Ad”1964 – “Daisy Girl”." The Pop History Dig » “LBJ’s Atomic Ad”1964 – “Daisy Girl”. Jack Doyle, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www.pophistorydig.com/?p=287>.

Goshgarian, Gary. "Introduction: Thinking and Reading Critically." Exploring Language: 10th Edition. New York: Pearson, 2003. Wood, Nancy V. Perspectives on Argument. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998. Print.

Meacham, Jon. "Do Attack Ads Work?" TIME.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/26/do-attack-ads-work/>.

Daly, Michael. "A Grown 'Daisy Girl' Recalls Her Infamous Attack Ad." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/18/a-grown-daisy-girl-recalls-her-infamous-attack-ad.html>.

"The 1960s." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www.history.com/topics/1960s>.

Wood, Nancy. Essentials of Argument. 2nd Ed. New York: Prentice Hall, 2008.