The moral high ground in political advertising is a swamp.
Every time a campaign staffer hits "send" on an email featuring a veteran, a uniform, or—in the most recent firestorm—a photo of a casket from a dignified transfer, the pearl-clutching begins. The headlines practically write themselves. They scream about "desecration," "disrespect," and "violating the sanctity" of the fallen.
It is a tired, predictable script. It is also fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
The recent backlash against a Trump-linked PAC for using a photo of a fallen soldier’s casket is the latest example of a "lazy consensus." The consensus claims that certain images are "off-limits" for politics. This premise is flawed because it ignores the reality of what a Commander-in-Chief actually does. If you have the power to send people into harm's way, you have a functional, albeit grim, ownership of the results of those decisions. To pretend these images exist in a vacuum outside of politics is to deny the very nature of statecraft.
The Myth of the Non-Political Soldier
We love the idea of the "apolitical military." It’s a comforting fiction. We pretend the armed forces exist on a pristine shelf, separate from the messy business of elections.
They don't.
The military is the most significant tool of executive policy. Every troop movement, every deployment, and every casualty is the direct result of a political choice made in a room with a mahogany table. To suggest that a candidate cannot use imagery of the military—even the most somber imagery—is to suggest that we should ignore the consequences of foreign policy during an election.
Critics argue that using a casket photo for fundraising is "monetizing death." Let’s look at the logic. Every campaign fundraiser is built on the promise of policy. If a candidate raises money on the platform of "bringing the troops home" or "strengthening our defenses," they are already monetizing the lives of service members.
Putting a photo of a casket in an email is just removing the abstraction. It’s visceral. It’s uncomfortable. But is it a lie? No. It is the reality of the stakes involved.
The Selective Outrage Engine
The indignation is almost always partisan. When a candidate from the "other side" uses military imagery, it’s a "disgusting photo op." When "your" candidate stands in front of a line of Abrams tanks or awards a medal to a grieving widow, it’s "honoring our heroes."
The optics are identical. The intent is identical. The goal is to project strength, empathy, and leadership.
I’ve spent years watching political consultants navigate these waters. They don't use these images because they are "evil" or "clueless." They use them because they work. They trigger a deep, emotional response that a white paper on trade tariffs never will. The "sanctity" of the dignified transfer is a social construct we’ve agreed upon to make the cost of war more palatable. When a campaign breaks that aesthetic seal, people get angry because they are being forced to look at the bill.
The Logistics of Visual Sovereignty
Who owns the image of a soldier?
Legally, if the photo is taken by a government employee (like a combat photographer) or in a public/press-accessible space, it’s often in the public domain. Ethically, the family’s wishes carry immense weight. But politically? The image belongs to the narrative.
Imagine a scenario where a candidate is prohibited from using any imagery related to military failure or sacrifice. What are we left with? A sanitized, PG-rated version of war where nobody gets hurt and every uniform is pressed. That is far more dangerous than a fundraising email. A country that cannot handle the visual reality of its fallen is a country that will continue to enter conflicts with a casual indifference.
The "outrage" we see in the media isn't about the soldier. It’s about the breach of etiquette. We’ve turned the death of service members into a matter of "good taste" rather than a matter of "state policy."
Stop Asking for Respect and Start Asking for Accountability
People often ask: "How can we stop campaigns from exploiting the military?"
The question is wrong. Exploitation is the baseline of political communication. Every group—teachers, firefighters, the "working class"—is used as a prop to signal a candidate's values. Why should the military be exempt?
If you find a casket photo in a fundraising email offensive, your issue isn't with the PAC. Your issue is with the system that requires $2 billion to win an election. Your issue is with a voter base that requires emotional manipulation to open their wallets.
The "contrarian" truth is that these photos are the only honest thing in the email. They represent the actual cost of the job the candidate is applying for. We should be demanding more reality in our political ads, not less. We should be forced to look at the results of the last twenty years of foreign policy every time we are asked for a $25 donation.
The Professionalism of Brutality
There is a cold, hard logic to the "shocker" ad. In a world of infinite digital noise, the only way to get a click is to violate a taboo.
- The Attention Economy: A standard flag-waving photo gets a 1% click-through rate. A casket photo gets 10%.
- The Tribal Signal: By using "forbidden" imagery, a candidate signals to their base that they are "anti-establishment" and willing to break the rules of the "liberal media."
- The Counter-Attack: The inevitable backlash from the press provides the campaign with a secondary fundraising opportunity: "The fake news media is attacking us for honoring our fallen!"
It’s a closed loop. The media gets their clicks from the outrage, and the campaign gets their money from the defense. Everyone wins except the viewer who still believes there are "rules" to this game.
The Intellectual Cowardice of "Sacredness"
Labeling something "sacred" is often just a way to shut down a difficult conversation. By saying the dignified transfer is "beyond politics," we are essentially saying that we aren't allowed to debate the circumstances that led to it within the context of an election.
If a soldier dies because of a botched withdrawal or a failed intelligence report, that death is entirely political. To hide the imagery of that death during an election is to protect the people responsible for it.
I have seen campaigns spend millions to "soften" their candidate's image. They use soft lighting, puppies, and smiling children. It’s a lie. The Presidency is a position of organized violence. It is the command of the most lethal force in human history.
If a candidate wants to use a photo of a casket, let them. And then let the public decide if the policy that led to that casket was worth it. That is the only "dignified" way to handle the situation.
Stop pretending to be shocked. Stop acting like the "sanctity" of the military is being ruined by a JPG file. The military is a tool of the state, and the state is run by politicians. If you don't like the imagery, stop voting for the wars.
Don't look away. Look harder.
The next time you see a controversial photo in your inbox, don't delete it because it’s "disrespectful." Keep it. Study it. Realize that this is the only moment of honesty you will get from a campaign all year. They are finally showing you the price tag.
Stop crying about the etiquette of the brochure while you're paying for the funeral.
