I remember being excited when my boss told me we were about to start releasing attack ads. Up until then, we were focused on building name recognition of our candidates, meaning most pieces I did were logos, official documents, and web graphics meant to familiarize voters with who they were and how they planned to legislate. It was mostly positive and inoffensive work that mostly adhered to a specific aesthetic. Designing attack ads takes all of that in a different direction.
Attack ads need hyperbolic imagery to sell the point. A politician who has a past of nepotistic behavior, abusing their power to enrich friends and family, could be portrayed as an imposing puppet master, a greasy card sharp, or any other number of goofy caricatures that identify scandalous behavior. The creative approach to designing attack ads has always been something I’ve enjoyed. It’s a graphic genre that is completely unique to politics.
It’s not something I particularly feel bad about (or feel a need to feel bad about). The people who exercise power should be criticized. A good man making complicated decisions makes no difference to me. The target has every opportunity to defend themselves or debunk the attack, or give a reasonable explanation. The voters will decide what the attack’s implications do to their vote. A candidate unable to recover from a weak attack shouldn’t be running in the first place, and should run only after they’ve at least worked on their statesmanship.