Politics and Painkillers

Now that the primary season is over, we can take a deep breath and watch television with an open mind. No longer will a soft-voiced speaker accuse another candidate of egregious crimes while somber music plays in the background. No more will opposing candidates be pictured in black-and-white photographs that look like mug shots. No longer will we have to steel ourselves against advertising lest we react too favorably to words that twist the truth. We're done with that...but only in the political process.

Recent commercials for Advil and Tylenol, each "campaigning" against the other for a larger share of the billion-dollar painkiller market, have made political commercials seem relatively benign. A few weeks ago, Johnson and Johnson, the maker of Tylenol, and the American Home Products Company, the maker of Advil, started their own battle in the painkiller scene. Both companies made numerous television commercials decrying the side effects of the other brand.

The fighting culminated with an Advil commercial complaining that the interaction of alcohol and Tylenol could lead to serious injury. In reality, both brands are safe for most users at the recommended dosage and have about the same amount of risk involved. The FDA has been planning to put warnings about the dangers of an interaction between alcohol and painkillers on all headache remedies, including both Tylenol and Advil. However, both makers choose to ignore that.

Major television networks finally pulled the harshest spots, while ABC went so far as to ban pharmaceutical commercials containing charges against rival drug companies. The networks feared people might become too confused by the back-and-forth exchanges and therefore ignore and-fourth exchanges and therefore ignore not only the charges leveled at the two drugs but also the important restrictions actually printed on the bottle. Other painkiller manufacturers fretted that the public might decrease consumption of all painkillers because they were so confused about painkiller restrictions.

Strangely enough, while networks are quick to see and cure these problems for headache remedies, no one realizes that the same two side effects may occur with negative campaigning in the political process. if each side keeps decrying the other for being immoral, we may not be able to judge with perspective the acts committed. Former vice president Dan Quayle's incorrect spelling of potato (with an e) seems to be on the same level of immorality as Sen. Bob Packwood's (R-Wash.) sexual harassment. By portraying so much of the government as corrupt, negative campaigning can also fan the flames of militia groups who believe there is no part of the government worth saving and are willing to start over from scratch.

To anyone who doubts that words could have such a large impact, one need only look at the recent torching of African-American churches in the Southern and border states. This trend started about the same time as some members of the far right conservatives, characterized by Pat Buchanan, made a series of speeches determined to capture the vote of the "angry white male." Of course, they resorted to negative campaigning, only this time most of the electorate--everyone except the "angry white male"--was their target. This strategy succeeded only too well.

This exploitation of white resentment has had drastic effects. The exploitation of voter resentment can have the same effect. Surely, we can learn from the lessons of painkillers and apply them to political campaigns. Words, and especially negative words, can turn people off to entire processes. With the bleak portrait of government facing them in the media every day, Americans in the best-case scenario would react with apathy, and in the worst case with some action, at the words of those who exploit fears and tensions.

Although the negative political campaigning has stopped, it will probably return during the national convention in August. But perhaps the feel-good aura of international cooperation during the Olympics will rub off on the candidates. While nations watch who are far poorer than we are, on the brink of civil war or recovering from its aftermath, or intent on building governments from scratch, candidates may be a little embarrassed to point to our own country as miserable.

Then again, if two safe headache remedies could make all painkillers look like poison, probably not.

Tanya Dutta's column appears on alternate Mondays.