Slate Is Under The Impression That Washington State Is Smarter Than Our Political Ads

A Washington State political race got some national ink on Friday at Slate under the unflattering headline "Unusually Stupid Campaign Ads," but unfortunately for us the headline alone doesn't really indicate which campaign Michael Kinsley's talking about in this article. It's Monday and a semi-holiday, so we'll spare you the effort of dredging up all the current campaigns. He's talking about McGavick/Cantwell.

If you knew nothing about Mike McGavick except what is in his TV commercials and on his Web site, you would conclude that either he is a moron, or he thinks you are a moron. Democratic incumbent Maria Cantwell's ads aren't so wonderful, either. They're mainly about all the federal money and other favors she's brought to the state. But if any of this is part of the "pork barrel … wasteful, out of control spending" that upsets McGavick, he doesn't say so.

The headline is actually misleading. He's not talking about how the advertisements in question have no content. He's trying to point out that the political payloads of these advertisements are contained in their subtext (and also that we lowly citizens are completely incapable of parsing the messages ourselves and need the media to decode what is actually being said).

The media do a better and better job each election cycle at pointing out and analyzing these campaign constructs. But by doing so, in a way, they legitimize it all. By raising up the subtext, they diminish the importance of the text. Don't be naive: You're not supposed to take this stuff literally. Politicians are trying to push your buttons. They aren't trying to communicate with you.

In the end, Kinsley admits that he developed a strong dislike for Mike! after viewing his commercials, but confesses that he must be in the minority because surely a political candidate for the U.S. Senate knows what he's doing.

Knowing virtually nothing about McGavick, I saw one of his 30-second spots last week and took an instant, personal, and possibly unfair dislike to him. And I wonder why everyone doesn't have the same reaction to these patronizing, insulting commercials. Maybe some do—McGavick is going to lose, apparently—but more must be turned on than are turned off, because McGavick is not nuts, either.