The New Face of Politics

There's one image few today will fail to recognize: the president's face outlined in red, yellow and blue, "hope" the only word attached. This poster and emoticon has been attached to most of President Obama's first and second campaigns, as well as a large part of his presidency. Campaign posters have not always been so simplistic. Political advertising has changed since George Washington took oath; after all, the government and the people of the United States have changed. Subsequently, so have their ideal politicians and the manor in which candidates advertise themselves as such.

Campaign posters reflect the ideals constituents hold for their leaders. In 1844, James Polk was described as the “the high statesman” and sported slogans about “pressing onward.” This early expansion rhetoric would most likely register as suspicious and violent today. Posters from the early nineteenth century display warriors, gentlemen and heroes. Early presidential candidates like Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison, elected in 1836 and 1841 respectively, were depicted on horses at the top of hills, over looking battle scenes. Modern posters of George W. Bush or John F. Kennedy are simpler. They show off a candidate interacting with constituents or paint their patriotism, contrasting their face against an American flag. Occasionally they are accompanied by family members. Today, constituents want the intellectual, competent, well-married and experienced congressman or senator in office. Not the valiant general or statesman. Nowhere will you find a candidate on a horse or involved in any sort of violence. Today, these messages would be considered powerfully negative.

Other differences are more obvious. The materials used to construct the posters were different. Photographs were unavailable, so drawings and cartoons were numerous. Colors were limited. Other aesthetic differences have also morphed.

Negative campaigning has grown more prevalent. Controversial or negative advertising, though predominantly on television and not in posters themselves, prevails today. Today’s campaign posters sport less text. Statements are more pointed and more heavily laden with pathos. When Thomas Dewey ran for president in 1944 he relied on plain, yellow posters exhibiting the slogan “Dewey or Don’t We.” When Abraham Lincoln ran for president in 1864, the entirety of his posters were covered with names of opponents, his vice president and his own. Lincoln’s posters were significantly more crowded than Dewey’s. They focused less on one, pointed argument. With advances in technology and the way messages are spread, the alteration of campaign rhetoric is fitting.

These short, taught slogans are better for the way information travels today. One-liners and campaign slogans are more important than ever, given YouTube replays and social media. In the presidential debate between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney earlier in October, the audience heard the phrases “small business” and “tax cuts” repeated an inordinate number of times. These slogans are intended for replays and clips of the debate online and across various television networks. Television and Internet allow messages to be repeated. Thus furthering the advertisement value of certain statements.

The nature of advertising today, as well as that of politics, has changed. The nature of advertising and politics continues to change. It is only natural that campaign consultants and advertising teams keep up. However, it is important to recognize that attracting constituents may not be the only reason posters have changed. Difference in material aside, perhaps posters simply aren’t intended to keep up with the best means of advertising. The game may be more about the changing nature of politics itself, not just the best way to get votes.