THE PRESS TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1989. Using the Bush techniques

Press, 31 January 1989, Page 12

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1989. Using the Bush techniques

When the president of the National Party, Mr Neville Young, says that some of the people who ran the Bush campaign for the United States Presidency might help : the National Party during the next election campaign, it is not clear whether he is talking in terms of technology and direct mailing or whether some of the persuasive techniques which characterised the election might be used. While keeping track of potential voters by computers and sending mail' to/ targeted people may be considered part of developing international technology, the National Party should pause before employing some of the persuasive techniques used in the last United States election. >

An earlier National Party comment suggested that the techniques were being considered. Mr Max Bradford, the National Party’s secretary-general, said when he returned to New Zealand after observing the United States election that the negative advertising on television had worked, despite voters finding it offensive. Taking Mr Young’s and Mr Bradford’s comments together, it is not far-fetched to believe that. the employment of some electioneering techniques, founded on American advice, are being considered in the higher ranks of the National Party. Money dominates politics in the United States in a way that it does not dominate the politics of New Zealand and the politics of a large number of other countries. The buying of television time is the key to election victories there. The advertising:; agencies employed during the Bush and Dukakis campaigns are very expensive. The National Party must have huge reserves of funds if it is proposing to pay the advertising agencies. The National Party should reject outright Mr Young’s suggestion that some Americans would work for the National Party for nothing because of their commitment to conservative politics. Anything that smacks of an international political conspiracy, or could be depicted as one, should not be tolerated. Even the fact that he would suggest it calls Mr Young’s judgment into question. It certainly makes the National Party sound desperate.

Both Mr Dukakis and Mr Bush used some tough and mean advertising, but some of the advertisements used and some of the comments made by Mr Bush and by his supporters — not all of whom had official Bush campaign backing — were nasty by any standards. Mr Bush called Mr Dukakis an “invalid,” publicising unproved rumours that Mr Dukakis had sought psychiatric help. Mr Dukakis threw open all his medical records and so overcame the “invalid” comment, but the mud stuck on other occasions when he was slow in responding. The technique used by the Bush team was to create an image which might have no substance and then make it awkward for the Dukakis team to refute it. Even if Mr Dukakis denied the allegation, the unfavourable impression remained.

Although some people might believe that Americans would misjudge the temper of New Zealanders and a highly offensivecampaign would backfire on the National Party, the techniques are fairly sophisticated;: and it may be assumed that, if opinion, surveys showed that people were reacting badly towards the National Party, the emphasis Would be changed until the polls gave the right reading.

The implications of all this for the politics of New Zealand would be appalling. Within the. United States a great many questions are being asked about the running of the last campaign• and the domination of election campaigns by brief television spots and brief news coverage of campaign < issues. Candidates and their campaign managers study ways of getting a brief mention on a television item each night and give very little attention to issues or any other real content of an election. One of the questions being asked is about whether people perceive that there is a difference between reality and what is depicted on the television screen. A former President, Jimmy Carter, interviewed for a programme suggested by the fambus English editor of the “Sunday Times,” Harold Evans, said that sometimes a momentous event felt as if it had not occurred unless it had appeared on television. There is not even the certainty about a politician’s appearance on American television that what you see is what you get. Politicians are paying great attention to the background against which they are seen. Issues get boiled down to what is known as a “bumper sticker mentality.” The result is that doubts are being raised about the capacity of some voters to do any thinking about the issues at all.

It is nonsense to want election campaigns to return to the soapbox. The presentation of politics through television is here to stay. This is not the main issue. But the deliberate employment of negative advertising as a main election campaign tool should be rejected by all parties. Political parties always blame other parties for ills, but when it becomes a deliberate and almost dominant method of winning elections, the whole political process is brought into contempt. That, combined with the huge expenditure of money in the United States may well lead to alienation of voters. The United States already has one of the lowest participation rates in elections in the Western world.

The National Party would serve New Zealand better if, instead of entertaining, at worst, thoughts about unsavoury political tactics, or at best, introducing an American flavour to our elections, it looked to issues and to the people it offers for election. The same can be said of all parties in this country. Nothing is so admirable about the United States way of presenting politics and politicians to the electorate that it needs to be introduced to New Zealand. Much is so trivial and offensive and obscuring that it would best be firmly resisted.