I've been thinking about campaign ads again, largely due to the book I am currently reading, "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," by Drew Westen. This morning, I read an International Herald Tribune article about how President Bush is going to continue to allow "mountaintop removal" mining in Appalachia, and it fit so well with what I had just read that I wanted to highlight it here.

From "The Political Brain," an ad for Democrats to run:

[Image: A rugged looking man with a fishing pole, walking along a stream, with his young son tagging along behind him, face turned downward in disappointment. The two continue to walk along the bank, kicking at stones, as the father speaks to the camera, sometimes directly, and sometimes with a faraway look in his eyes] I used to fish here with my dad and grandpa. Always thought I'd take my son here and teach him how to catch bass. [The man is now obviously holding a rancid fish in one hand] But we can't fish here anymore. They're dumping some kind of chemicals up there [pointing] in the Potomac, and now most of the male bass, like this one, have ovaries and eggs. It's just unnatural. [Look of disgust, as the man throws the fish back on the bank, and turns to walk away, with his arm around his son] Announcer: Six years ago, you could catch fish in this stream. But now the polluters are in charge of regulating pollution. Protect our rivers and streams. Vote for common sense and traditional American values. Vote Democratic.

This ad is absolutely brilliant, and wouldn't have to be changed very much to tie in the "mountaintop removal" mining and how may streams it has destroyed in coal country.

The brilliance of the ad is because it works on so many levels, for so many people. It doesn't use the word "environment" (with all the tree-hugging hippie associations that word now carries for many), it appeals to fisherman and sportsmen in general (a group Democrats should be courting to reap swing votes), and it promotes family and American values (again, issues that Democrats need to reclaim as their own).

It also works on subtle and emotional levels. As Westen points out:

By calling attention to the ovaries and eggs now found in male bass in West Virginia, it implicitly threatens traditional viewers' ideas of masculinity, associates the threat with polluters, regulators, and Republicans who've put them in charge, and calls attention to the fact that what's happening is unnatural -- a feeling long used by the right to discredit progressive policies. You don't have to care about the spotted owl to experience the images in this ad as disturbing.

If targeted to the right markets, this ad could be extremely effective. The Bush White House is just handing this issue on a plate to the Democrats -- "we're for big coal, screw the environment" is essentially what the new regulations state. But unless this message is framed this way, and hammered home, most people won't even notice this story. "Ho hum, another story about government regulations which have nothing to do with me, since I don't live there."

Democrats have proven that they can intelligently frame an issue about a place nobody visits, since they have consistently shut down Republican efforts to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). When people hear ANWR, they think of caribou. There's a reason they do, and that reason is because Democrats successfully framed the issue (for once). Protecting streams for fishing is another image they could be just as successfully utilizing to show the American public the face of the Republican Party, up close and personal.

I have heard that there is an upcoming battle of the airwaves over the Iraq war, with anti-war and pro-war television ads being run in the districts of congressmen who have voted for the war. That is a good thing, and needs to be done.

But I also wish Democrats would aggressively run ads that bring other issues into the debate than just the war. Because the war isn't the only reason voters should consider voting for Democrats. Democrats need to put all the other reasons to do so squarely in front of the public, or else they're going to be a one-issue party next year.

And that would be a shame, given Bush's love of taunting Democrats with such provocative actions (like destroying streams for big coal profits). But if the Democrats never make the Republicans pay for what Bush is doing behind everyone's back, then it will be a lot harder to elect Democrats next year.

-- Chris Weigant