Cultivation Theory and the Presidency

Posted on behalf on Katelyn Bermudez:

American culture is completely saturated by drama. The political process and office of the presidency is an area which has not escaped this reality. Since Washington’s first inauguration the media has been overcome with a strong interest for the president’s personal life and what the position entailed. Naturally with that interest and the advancement of technology, movies and television shows about the president were to be expected.

There are of advantages about the presence of these shows. An increased interest in the presidency and American politics in general can help people become interested in the governmental system. Donnalyn Pompper pointed out in The West Wing: White House Narratives that Journalism Cannot Tell, that these fictional dramas allow certain aspects of presidential life to be demonstrated that journalists are not able to share in a news story. “Scripts aim to tell “not what happens, but to reveal how it happens.”(Pompper 4). The issue however with shows such as the West Wing are that they create false expectations and beliefs about the American political process and set standards for current presidents that may be impossible to attain.

For example Pompper states that “the fictional oval office inhabitants consider public service a worthy, noble pursuit, and they work there because they hope to do good, not because of personal ambition.” (Pompper 4) If these expectations are seen by viewers and the cultivation theory is applied, Hollywood then sets unachievable standards which can lead to unhappy Americans and low approval ratings.

As Rick Shenkman editor of HNN points out, “badly as Hollywood often presents the presidents, it has had an enduring impact on how we see them, how they behave, and even, in a few cases, on who won…Hollywood's depiction of American presidents is by and large a record of failure.” (Shenkman)

It will be interesting now to see how the current presidency will be portrayed in the future. As such as historical president, Obama will always be respected and seen as an important figure as the first African American President. This fact about him should be respected and demonstrated. That being said though, it will be interesting to see how much that role becomes demonstrated in Hollywood. Also I wonder if it will overshadow elements such as his low approval ratings and policies which have passed. Like any predecessor only time will tell. (http://hnn.us/articles/1749.html)

Casting Call for…Mrs. President?

Posted on behalf of Kailyn Corrigan:

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=9&sid=20a7ecd6-44e5-4282-8604-ccebbed64177%40sessionmgr11

With mid-term elections behind us, there exists… the future. The future of our government’s leadership is unknown—a little too unknown if you ask me. Previous possibilities varied from right to left, old to young, east to west. Demographically there were far less chances for change. The 2012 Presidential election now welcomes demographic changes such as, race (Obama), religion (Romney) and most notably gender. Sarah Palin, to all of Hillary’s probable dismay, has thrown the presidential gender card up for grabs. A leader whose typical traits are listed as “dominance, aggression, self-reliance and personal control” in terms of masculinity in Harp, Loke and Bachmann’s article “First Impressions of Sarah Palin: Pit Bulls, Politics, Gender Performance, and a Discursive Media (Re)contextualization” is what we and the media have come to expect and characterize our presidents as in media and movies. What then happens if we have a female president whose femininity culturally represents sensitivity and warmth?


As Quinnipiac University Polling Institute asks in their first question “Thinking ahead to the 2012 Presidential Election, if the candidates were Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, who would you vote for?” we are forced to consider the feminine impressions Palin has made on America. As I read Harp, Loke and Bachmann’s journal article in Communication, Culture and Critique, I was forced to consider the movie Independence Day however random that may be. If using a female president, would she become friends with the aliens? Would she run away with a full face of make-up?


The study conducted used gender portrayals of Palin through network appearances, gatekeeping, a random sample of videos and the narrative. She was coded as feminine, masculine and neutral. She was predominantly noted as a “mother,” according to the study, but “beauty queen” was also mentioned. These conclusions forced me to consider Giglio’s article “Hollywood and Washington: The Marriage of Film and Politics.”

The introduction of this reading explores a hypothetical movie writing scene about an American President. The themes they search for are “political intrigue;” “sex;” “war” and a “happy ending.” Do you think that a movie centered around a female president would carry the same motives? Would a movie about the “American President” still be a concept, or hugely different depending on the sex they decide to use. Would they use a female president at all? I ask these questions based on the fact that Harp, Loke and Bachmann featured a study in which our most seemingly popular female Republican is most commonly portrayed as “motherly.”

In a sense, does this then confuse the connotative definition of the “American President?” Taking into consideration Giglio’s article, the “First-Impression of Sarah Palin…” study and the recent mix of celebrity/ politics, I feel a president’s gender will have a much larger impact than many would expect before considering the media. Do you feel it will be difficult for a female president to escape the “sexy librarian” mold, even inside the Oval Office walls? I think it would also be interesting to see the study conducted, using Hillary Clinton as a subject. Would she be considered “motherly?” I plan on watching the show Commander in Chief, featuring Geena Davis as President of the United states to explore this topic.

Presidential Character

While reading the articles for this week, I really got stuck on the particular article by Peter C. Rollins entitled “Hollywood’s Presidents.” While I was reading this, I naturally kept thinking about our current President, Barak Obama, and the obvious struggle he is having both with the bi-partisan congress and within himself. In the United States, our President must be able to strike a balance between being a figure head for the country, and being an effective and progressive leader, successfully getting the two parties to compromise and enact legislature beneficial to all. We can see how when he was campaigning, he was running on phrases and rhetoric that the American people would respond positively to, as they truly did want a change after being in a war and watching the economy slip away. However, you cannot simply have the rhetoric and not back it up with a solid stance on the policies that will make that change happen.

Rollins mentions this in his article when he explains what happened in the movie, “The American President.” President Shepherd is accused of having an affair by his opponent, and at a press conference Shepherd said, “’Being president of this country is completely about character (260).’” “He comes back against his Kansas opponent with dynamic policy positions on free speech… with an economic focus rather than silly rhetoric… with an initiative on global warming… and with stiffer gun controls (260).” Although fictional, as Americans this is exactly what we want in a President. Someone who is obviously human and make mistakes just like the rest of us, but is able to triumph over any negative backlash with his ability to enact policy, supersede the divide between the parties, and lead the American people. I think President Obama set out to do so, but failed to prepare enough to endure the almost even split in congress and the backlash from Americans who are in rough economic times.

An article from the New York Times also mentions this. Although from the Opinion section, I believe this particular article explains some of what most of America is feeling right now. The article makes an interesting point about the promises of transcendence made by Obama in the campaign, but he was not expecting the fight he would be confronted with in our bi-partisanship. The question now becomes, can he back up his rhetoric with dynamic policy? Can he fight and prevail? Other questions I propose to you are after reading the Times article, do you think he can put up a successful fight? What about the way he handles foreign policy?

Also, we often see present presidents’ characters attacked, but once out of office they almost take on an ideal character. We’ve seen this countless times, starting with George Washington himself. In the clip of President Bush’s interview with Oprah he believes the same will happen to him. Do you agree? How do you think President Obama’s character will be viewed when his presidency comes to an end? How much of a role does integrity and strength of character play for you when deciding who to vote for, and why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/opinion/15krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Politicians and Celebrities and Spin Doctors, Oh my!

We would all love to live in a world where we can believe everything we hear. We'd love to think that all politicians are looking out for the best interests of American citizens rather than themselves. As students of media and politics, those of us in this class know to take everything with a grain of salt. But what about the rest of America? Where do we all fit in the grand scheme of political agenda?

Ernest Giglio's Here's Looking At You: Hollywood, Film, and Politics draws a distinction between films and politics. But what interested me the most about this reading was the issue of the blurred line between celebrity status and political stature, which is a discussion that has come up time and time again in class. Ronald Regan was a Hollywood actor before being elected president. Arnold Schwarzenegger is now the "Governator" of California. Even Steven Colbert tried to run for president in the 2008 election. So of course, this leads perfectly into the case of Sarah Palin, whose reality series "Sarah Palin's Alaska" premieres next week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101115/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticspalin;_ylt=AvikoVYtZJDVyVHMWthPPZayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJta205bDR0BGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMTExNS91c3BvbGl0aWNzcGFsaW4EcG9zAzE0BHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDcmlzaW5ndXNtZWRp

The above article discusses the insane amount of power that Palin has acquired since 2008. Feelings about this are completely divided -- some people feel that her popularity would be an asset to the Republican party, while others are frankly afraid of the rate at which Hurricane Palin is gaining strength. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her policies, she is the perfect example of how a politician can use their celebrity to obtain a position in politics.

There are two ways we can look at this phenomenon. On the one hand, many of Sarah Palin's recent actions are backed by applaud-worthy public relations. She's written books, has chosen to star in a reality show, and additionally, it's probably no coincidence that the nation's most popular teen mom, Bristol Palin, is now on the most popular reality show on television, Dancing With the Stars. From a public relations standpoint, Sarah Palin is doing everything right. She fully embraces the idea of the "image is everything" presidency, and has made countless efforts to maintain her image as an extraordinary "common man" figure. I may even dare to say that much of Palin's support comes from her relate-ability rather than her actual policies or her abilities as a political figure.

On the other hand, building one's own celebrity status to gain political popularity seems somewhat manipulative. While most politicians ride on past political contributions during a presidential campaign, Palin will be relying mostly on her popularity as a reality star and a media sensation. Though she has made an effort to be more politically active in the past two years, I think it is fair to say that, if a non-celebrity figure with Sarah Palin's political history tried to run for president, they probably wouldn't be taken very seriously.

Using celebrity status to gain political stature certainly has its fair share of both positive and negative attributes, but what do you think this means for politics? Is it a good thing that politicians have the option of garnering support through celebrity status? Does political fandom actually help boost nationalism? Or do you feel that this kind of fandom will actually hurt the political process?

----

Ernest Giglio, Here’s Looking at You: Hollywood, Film & Politics (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), Ch. 1& 6

A New Form of News?

We are at a day in age where a large portion of the population chooses to get their political news and information from comical figures like Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Bill Maher. These hosts gather high ranking political figures and interview and chat in a light-hearted way. However, there is still a lot of raw information being discussed and it is important not to write these TV shows off as they hold a lot of weight and validity in the political spectrum. Jeffrey Jones of Entertaining Politics writes, "citizens have forgotten the importance of social connection's and the benefits those connection's have in producing a rich democratic polity because we have divorced ourselves from each other through isolated acts of watching entertainment television.(p8) It is this strong connection with the viewer and the host that adds to having a more open and pure democratic relationship which is one of many important aspects in a healthy democratic system.

Regardless of ones feelings about receiving political news from these quirky comical hosts, the fact is that many citizens are watching these programs, so therefore the need to be taken seriously. It is fair to say that more people are watching Comedy Central, HBO, and MTV than C-SPAN. However, audiences of the political programs on these television channels must be fully aware that this information may and probably is biased and skewed. "For Neil Postman, the problem is epistemological-television is an inferior(even dangerous) means of knowing the arena of politics. Due to the technological biases of electronic communication(as opposed to his privileging the written word), television offers little more than amusement, entertaining and distracting because the medium is incapable of helping us think in another way."(p8) This critical outlook on televisions news process is certainly understandable and probably correct, however, the fact remains that people are STILL watching which can only leave room for improvement on the stations part. It is the responsibility of the hosts of these shows and the stations to provide reasonable information that will keep the viewer involved. In a New York Times Article, "Is Jon Stewart The Most Trusted Man in America?", the idea that these shows serve as a way of dealing and filtering with upsetting issues is key to not only their success but also what they're intentions are. If Jon Stewart is the most trusted man in America, what does that say about our actual politicians?

This ability to hone in on all of the audiences needs and wants are the real reason for the success of these programs. The perfect balance between humor, drama, raw information and criticism allows the reader to watch with an open mind and with an intent. An intent of not only getting informed about issues effecting the country but also enjoying yourself while you do it. This is why viewers keep coming back and why they will continue doing so in the future.

Sources:

Jones, Jeffrey. "Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture."

Lanham: Rowman and Littlefiel, 2005. 1-14

Kakutani, Michiko. "Is Jon Steware the Most Trusted Man in America?" New York Times. 15 August, 2008.

Comedy in Politics

It is now far from true that the main political television networks are the only place one can find politics on TV. Entertainment and comedic channels such as Comedy Central, Bravo, HBO and MTV are hosting some of the country’s most prominent political figures, and if they’re not hosting them, they are talking about them…a lot. In this week’s reading from Entertaining Politics, author Jeffrey Jones wrote, “Politics is now appearing on numerous and disparate channels and is packaged in a variety of formats and genres, including sitcoms, satires, parodies, town halls, roundtable discussion, talking head debates and viewer-participation programs” (5). Comedians like Jon Stewart are getting much of their material from politicians. Placing a comedic touch on current political topics often encourages people to become informed on what is going on in the country. Former ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings described this political comedic appeal. “Jon Stewart can enunciate important things about politics and politicians that the norms of objectivity won’t allow Jennings to say” (6).

A comedic approach to politics interests the public and presents political material in an engaging way. “Entertaining politics highlights the fact that politics can be pleasurable” (9). Audiences at home are interested in the entertainment aspect behind much of the drama of politics. I think an advantage to comedy in politics is that it can humanize the candidate and make them more relatable. But often the comedic side presented does not represent the candidate in the best light or as looking the most intelligent but it leads to recognition for the politicians or the issues being discussed.

Bill Maher, host of television show Politically Correct that aired on Comedy Central and current host of HBO’s show Real Time is a major contributor to entertainment politics. ABC News writer, Ryan Creed, covered a story on Maher’s most recent political dig. Maher’s name is currently associated with Delaware’s GOP U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell. It was on Maher’s show Politically Correct in 1999 where O’Donnell made a controversial statement that she “dabbled into witchcraft.” In September, Maher re-released this clip that media pundits are currently having a field day with. This comment that O’Donnell made has resurfaced and is now an ongoing issue she has to further explain to voters. She went about addressing her statements regarding witchcraft by airing a promotional advertisement where she states she is not a witch. (Video can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGGAgljengs.) Political entertainment host Maher is trying to get O’Donnell back on his show to further explain her previous witchcraft statements, and he said he will continue to air this footage until she agrees to come on the show. "It's like a hostage crisis," Maher said. "Every week you don't show up, I'm going to throw another body out."

By reinstituting this embarrassing footage of O’Donnell, Maher’s role as a political comedic may very well affect the outcome of the U.S. Senate race in Delaware. Jones wrote, “Politics is increasingly crafted through and for media spectatorship, and hence the desired separation between media and politics no longer exists” (8). Clearly, an entertainment aspect to politics provides viewers with amusement, but do entertainment shows do anything for the policy aspect of politics? They are useful because they allow for the public to gain interest in politics and help viewers to have a general working knowledge of political topics, but to what extent do entertainment political shows inform the public on the important issues at hand? We have learned from Maher that years ago O’Donnell was involved in witchcraft, but what has Maher taught us about her policy issues? I think entertainment political shows are effective in the sense that they are amusing. They bring attention to main political topics but they require the viewer to either be somewhat informed already or to do further research. I find it a little scary that many people of our generation rely solely on this type of entertainment television as their main source of news rather than as a supplement to mainstream network news.

Sources:
Jones, Jeffrey. “Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture.” Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. 1-14.

Creed, Ryan. “Maher Airs Christine O’Donnell ‘Witchcraft’ Video.” ABC News. 23 Oct 2010.
.

“Christine O’Donnell: I’m You.” You Tube. You Tube. 4 Oct 2010. Web. 23 Oct 2010.
.

No Substance, No Progress

In Chapter 4 of "The Image is Everything Presidency," Waterman discusses the issues of the "constant campaign" and how campaign tactics have changed over the years. One major change that occurred with the advent of television was the transition from advertisements based on substantive policy issues to "[simple] statements of unobjectionable platitudes." To many of us this is obvious, but as campaigns evolve with new technologies voters are becoming increasingly apathetic.

A recent article in the New York Times suggests growing volatility between midterm election candidates. This is nothing new, candidates have been fiercely attacking each other for years, but it would have been hard to comprehend 50 years ago just how ridiculous campaign ads would become. For instance, take what is perhaps one of the most absurd campaign ads of all time, republican senate candidate from Delaware Christine O'Donnell's assertion that she is not a witch. Watch it on youtube by clicking here. It is understandable that she would address public concerns about her image, but at no time does she specifically reference a policy or a method of carrying that policy out. Similarly candidates nationwide (from both parties) are deflecting attention away from their own stances by denouncing their opponents; "Sometimes that ferocity takes the form of discrediting their rivals’ backgrounds....Other times it involves linking their opponents’ policy agendas to objects of their constituents’ fear" (Harwood). Either way we are left with little knowledge of the candidate being spoken for and often misleading information about their opponents. So the question is who are we really voting for?

What is even more disconcerting is Waterman's reference to pre-television campaigns. It is clear that the average modern day voter votes on image over substance, but past campaigns were perpetuated by supporters and newspapers with little involvement by the candidates themselves. Have we ever truly known the candidate we vote for? Before television, citizens simply relied on others to tell them who their candidates were and when television finally came about we decided to choose our leaders based on those who made the best aesthetic impression and the least amount of verbal blunders. This is no way to choose a leader. As citizens we must demand greater accountability from our candidates. New methods of social networking and electronic media make it virtually impossible to keep the candidates of the future as vague as in the past, but in a time of such economic hardship can we afford to remain so misdirected and ill-informed? Next time you see a smear-ad or an ad where a candidate speaks about the generic "I will work to..." ask yourself, why, how, and what does that tell me about you?

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/wielding-two-by-fours-instead-of-talking-points/?scp=4&sq=campaign%20advertisements&st=cse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask

Paladino's Redemption

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, you have inevitably heard about Carl Paladino’s anti-gay rant and his overexposure to the media desperately trying to defend his actions. Paladino, the New York Republican candidate for governor, stated at a gathering in Brooklyn that he is fearful of homosexuals “brainwashing” today’s youth. From a YouTube video recording of the speech, Paladino’s exact words were:

“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,”

Paladino then went on to belittle his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo, by informing the public that Cuomo marched in the gay pride parade this year (Paladino did not, obviously) and he feels that it is “not the example we should be showing our children.”

After the rest of the country and the media got wind of these seemingly homophobic remarks the Paladino camp went on serious damage control. Mr. Paladino went to nearly every New York media outlet in hopes to explain his actions, and in a very Obama-like fashion, his wife tried so soften her husband’s imagine. According to a New York Times article titled Another Paladino’s Views, Cathy Paladino admits to having different opinions on homosexuality and is upset that now the attention has shifted to his view on gay marriage. She states: “I just find it so disheartening that in the six months of this campaign we haven’t even talked about issues. And you have three weeks left and it’s not important to talk about. I don’t know. I don’t get it. It’s sad.”

Initially after reading that New York Times article I initially felt bad for Mrs. Paladino. But I had to do a double take after reading that last quote. The New York gubernatorial campaign has been six months long and they have not even talked about issues? What?! The Waterman book mentions that even presidential campaigns follow this “image before substance” tactic. “For a candidate to plan how he will actually govern following an election has indeed become something of an afterthought” (Waterman 75). It seems as though in any political race a candidate’s image outweighs his or her ability. The individuals working behind (and in front) the scenes are simply interested in just winning the contest.

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKL9TRaePww

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/nyregion/16trailer.html?ref=carl_p_paladino

The Image is Everything Campaign

In the readings for this week Waterman discusses how “television created a new and unprecedented opportunity for candidates to construct a carefully honed image they could sell to voters”. It is undeniable to notice how the new precedent for media usage has led to even more innovative uses such as social mediums in current elections. President Obama used social networking as a means to get his message out as well as a way to acquire donations from his supporters. While those campaign strategies paid off for him in November of ’08, will they pay off again during the 2010 midterm elections?

In the article Obama Trots Out 2008 Slogans in Philadelphia Danny Yardon of the Wall Street Journal writes that “The White House has said Democrats' best chance at victory is getting likely Democratic voters who had voted for the first time in 2008 to vote again.” What is interesting is that while President Obama’s image faces a major change in approval ratings since he was inaugurated he has yet to alter his image of “hope” and “change” and is still expecting the exact same people to come out in 2010 as they did in 2008. However voter apathy is growing as some Democrats feel apathetic to the new elections and consider their no vote better than a vote at all. This voter apathy stems some major questions into why President Obama was elected in the first place. Waterman states” the result [of television created politicians] was primary and general election campaigns that did not emphasize Nixon [Obama, in this case] the man as he really was, but the presidential image that Nixon wanted to project”. These projections are now hurting President Obama as people question if what they voted for produced the results they expected.

Now that President Obama is using the same tactics used in previous elections to help Democrats win big in November, it will be attention-grabbing to see if it will work again for the benefit of the Democrats because despite President Obama’s low approval ratings he is still “able to attract large crowds”. In fact, even though President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are being harped on by candidates from both sides of the aisle, they are both able to raise massive amounts of money for candidates that they support. According to an article by the New York Times since 2009, Pelosi has “raised $53.2 million” on behalf of Democratic incumbent candidates. Even though the new opportunities that television presented candidates then are quickly moving towards the internet, it is still noticeable how images that are crafted via television can still have a impact years after that politicians public image has changed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703358504575545034080748828.html?mod=WSJ_Politics_LeftTopStories

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/us/politics/10pelosi.html?scp=2&sq=Pelosi&st=cse

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

Do Polls Steer Voters to Other Political Side?

The media has a large influence on how the public views political figures and policies. Polls that are conducted to examine potential campaign results reach many Americans. People do not like being told what to do, so the average American may want to go “against the grain” when it comes to voting the day of elections. According to an article on politicaldaily.com, a site branched from AOL news, Senior Correspondent Walter Shapiro writes, “Cosseted by the candidates and pampered by the pundits, these first-in-the-nation primary voters rebel against being taken for granted and revel in proving the dumbness of the conventional wisdom.” Shapiro argues that with the midterm elections coming up, the constant use of poll results and possible election outcomes in the media overwhelms voters. They no longer want to hear about how the elections will turn out, since they are the ones that help in making that decision. He believes “all this is prelude to an against-the-grain notion.” The American people become tired of hearing how they will most likely vote according to polls, so subconsciously they choose to do the opposite.

In Waterman’s book, “The Image is Everything Presidency,” he argues the use of paid political consultants and polls have helped to intensify the concept that image is more important in political campaigns than the candidate’s stance on an issue. “For much of our nation’s history the political parties played a major role in choosing the candidates who would represent them in the fall presidential election” (Waterman 76). However, modern day politics involves hiring campaign teams and the political parties are distanced from this process. This contributes to the idea that image becomes more important than the issues when candidates can only successfully get on the ballot with the help of media experts rather than their political party.

Political campaign teams work to create an image for the candidate that they are representing. Waterman states, “The outcome of the national convention…is now almost always decided well before the convention actually begins” (Waterman 76). He notes that presidential candidates begin running well before the election year. The image of a candidate is created and imprinted into the minds of the American people and they identify on different levels with the candidate. The public feels they know the person not just the policies. However, the problem occurs as Waterman notes, “when image is what wins the presidency” (Waterman 93). The images of politicians portrayed in the media through poll results and knowledge from pundits have become more apparent and voters use the image of a candidate to make their decision and do not factor in the issues.

Shapiro discusses the midterm elections stating, “the expectation of a GOP tidal wave is so ingrained in the media and politically sophisticated voters that it is easy to imagine the morning-after headlines.” The concept in politics of living in the future and always planning for what comes next gets old for Americans. The public hears from the press how a political situation will turn out, and then the opposite comes true. People become exhausted of hearing about the possible results and choose to do the opposite.

Shapiro argues, “what if some of these voters impetuously decide to rewrite their lines without telling the pollsters?” Reporters may lose credibility when their predictions are wrong. They do not intend to trick voters by reporting the facts they gathered, which can turn out to be the opposite of the results. The public must realize that political consultants are not all knowing and polls are not always accurate. I suppose we will have to wait and see if there are any surprises in the midterm elections.

Shapiro, Walter. “Is 2010 the Year Voters Turn Polls on Their Heads?” Politics Daily. 7 Oct. 2010. Web. 9 Oct. 2010. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/07/is-2010-the-year-american-voters-turn-polls-on-their-heads.

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Gilbert St. Clair. The Image-is-Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

Obama's Plan to Energize Voters

Recently President Obama has been expressing his displeasure with Democrats. Not Democrats on Capitol Hill but registered Democrat voters. At a number of speaking engagements and in interviews President Obama has been trying to energize youth voters who came out to support him in the general election of 2008.

"It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines," the president declared in a Rolling Stone magazine interview. He said that supposed supporters who are "sitting on their hands complaining" are irresponsible because the consequences of Republican congressional victories could be dashed Democratic plans.”

This new aggressive tactic may not win over voters as easily as Obama is expecting. According to the Huffington Post “Several Democratic strategists privately fear that the strategy to motivate Democrats with sternness could backfire partly because it runs counter to Obama's carefully cultivated hopeful, uplifting image.” Personally, I agree. Being a registered Democrat, but also as a student of politics, I realize what is at stake in the upcoming elections. I also realize that it is important for the Obama administration to get voters to go to the polls and show their support. However, I don’t believe that the way to do that is by virtually yelling at people.

Another problem with this tactic is that Obama is appearing to put partisanship over policy. Rather than profile what issues the Democrats are supporting, and what policies risk being overturned if the GOP succeeds in taking seats away from Democrats in the House and Senate, he is merely asking voters to blindly vote based on the image of him, the President, as the leader of his party. And at the moment, this is not an image many people are looking to vote for.

Although this new approach could be considered Jacksonian in the sense that “Through direct appeals to the people, Jackson drew a connection with the common man” (Waterman, 24), Obama is going about this is a way which I feel will prove ineffective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/obama-hits-democrats-ahea_n_741609.html

Image of Hope and Change Lost

In 2008 Barack Obama ran for president on the rallying cries of hope and change. He captured the nation’s attention with an array of promises, the big one being that he will fix the economy. At the time Obama represented the optimism that many Americans needed. Two years later that optimism is disappearing.

While Obama has made some significant accomplishments and changes during his time in the White House. In the Image-Is-Everything Presidency, Richard Waterman writes, “One of the primary problems with image politics is that images oftentimes do not reflect reality. Because they are related to perception and perceptions can change (57).” With Obama’s approval ratings dropping, it indicates that the perception of Obama has changed. Obama’s image no longer reflects hope and change, but rather failure and frustration largely because he has been unable to fulfill his biggest campaign promise, which was to fix the economy.

The Huffington Post posted an article with a video from John Stewart's The Daily Show that perfectly shows the difference in Obama in 2008 and Obama now. We watched the video in class, but this best contrasts Obama's image.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/stewart-obama-kryptonite_n_734227.html

The clip shows a very enthusiastic Obama in 2008, making promises and firing up crowds. It then cuts to clips over the past two years of a very frustrated Obama making excuses that Congress is being too difficult. Obama has also recently sunk to the point where he is bashing the Republican Party for all his road blocks. The American people do not want to see the president making excuses and blaming others. I think that Obama can restore his image if he stops making excuses, brings back the passion he had in the 2008 campaign and convince the American public that if they stick with him, things will get better.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/stewart-obama-kryptonite_n_734227.html

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Clair Gilbert K. St. "Historical Images." The Image-is-everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview, 1999. 23-44. Print.

Obama Take His Offensive to GOP Country

           The article, Obama Take His Offensive to GOP Country, appeared in the Washington Post last Thursday.  Examining President Obama’s recent appearances in GOP states, the article looks at The President’s recent efforts to gain support of voters.  However, in my opinion, he has done the complete opposite. 

            Instead of gaining votes by addressing issues and concerns of the people, he more or less attacks the Republicans. According to the article, “the president dismissed Republicans as ‘not serious.’”  At a rally in Madison, Wis., on Tuesday night, of more than 20,000 people, “Obama accused the GOP of working to ‘hoodwink a whole bunch of folks all across the country’ about his governmental philosophy.”  As a republican, this would not be the to my vote.  Verbally attacking the whole Republican Party is pretty immature.  In fact, Obama went on to “twice sarcastically dismissed Republicans as not ‘interested in facts.’” 

            In regards to Obama’s disapproval, it was not a surprise that he made a statement about his lack of ability to please the American people. “At one point, responding to criticism that he hasn't done enough yet, he said, ‘I've only been here two years, guys. . . . I figured I needed to have something to do for the next couple of years.’”  In a response to this statement, I feel as though he isn’t taking the Presidency seriously.  Perhaps if he wasn’t so busy traveling and going on vacation every few weeks, the President would be able to make the necessary improvements needed in our country. 

            More or less, the overall point that I am trying to make is one that Waterman makes in the book, The Image-Is-Everything Presidency.  In chapter 5, Waterman addresses the uses of successful speech making.  In order to be successful, “presidents have to increasingly used speechmaking as a means of promoting their image and their popularity” (103).  With this said, one has to wonder, was this the idea that Obama had in mind when he was addressing the GOP states?  While this chapter also discusses the increasing popularity among presidents to give more speeches but not exactly address policy, I still don’t see the purpose in Obama’s direct attack.  He didn’t have to address policy; however, he could have given a more personal speech rather than one he gave.

sources: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092907795.html?wprss=rss_print/asection

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Clair Gilbert K. St. "Historical Images." The Image-is-everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview, 1999. 23-44. Print.

Brand Palin: ‘A Common’ Woman, You Betcha!

Following the resignation of her governorship, Sarah Palin was pretty much written off by everyone. Her 15 minutes of fame had come and gone and people where happy to put the 2008 elections in the past. Looking to the future and to their new President whose promises of hope and change were warmly welcomed in a country whose economy and American dreams were slowly slipping between their fingers, Sarah Palin slowly faded from everyone’s mind. Then like a bat out of hell Sarah Palin resurfaced in 2010 and stronger than ever. According to the Time article entitled ‘How Sarah is Winning the War With(in) the GOP,’ she is “now more popular nationally, more in demand by conservative groups as a speaker and far richer than she’s ever been.” Additionally, “she’s become the most important independent endorser in a generation” (Time.com Article). Although she has not officially put her hat in the presidential race of 2010, she certainly is packing some serious heat; power and money, oh yeah and her “16-11 win-loss record in the recent GOP primaries” guaranteeing her the support and loyalty that she did not have the last time around (Time.com Article).

But how did a woman once ridiculed in the press for being under qualified and inexperienced for the position of V.P. muster the support of not only an entire movement (Tea Party), but soon perhaps the majority of republicans themselves? (Even though “40 % of Republicans [still] doubt [whether or not] she is qualified for the presidency in 2012”—Time.com Article) Is this really happening? You Betcha! Sarah Palin has taken on the historical image of what Waterman refers to as “The Common [Wo]Man” (Image is Everything Presidency). This image says just as much about the campaign Palin is running (or not running) as it does about the prevailing attitudes of this era—and both are shocking. The image of the ‘common man’ reflects the “image of the President as an ordinary American” (23). Self-described as a “commonsense conservative,” Palin is just that—common, or at least she tries very hard to appear to be with her Palinspeak and ‘I’m just like every other unrepresented middle-class, toddler-toting, hockey mother’ out there. Appealing to the emotions of the middle-class and empathizing with their struggles she’s totally cut out the need to prove herself to Washington. She doesn’t need Washington to like her, she has the support of the people behind her and therefore the support of the Washington whether they are happy about it or not. Even though a good percentage of Republicans doubt that she’s qualified to be President—her charismatic appeal and hot selling, stick a Palin Sticker on it and its sold, Palin brand may have the momentum to carry her into office in 2012.

However, even though the ‘common man’ image historical has succeeded in getting a candidate elected into office, Waterman warns that it is often a “double-edge sword” often “remind[ing] the public that a particular individual was not big enough for the job” (43). Essentially, we end up getting what we deserve and what we knew all along but were too blinded by our own reflections to see, a candidate that talks a lot, but says nothing; and a presidency that promises a lot, but does nothing. The thing is Presidents are not supposed to be ordinary, they are suppose to be extraordinary. As we look to history, so being history repeats itself, we may see Palin run for office in 2012 and we very well may see her win.

Sources:
Newton-Small, Jay. "How Palin Is Challenging the Republican Establishment - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 23 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2021154,00.html.

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Clair Gilbert K. St. "Historical Images." The Image-is-everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder: Westview, 1999. 23-44. Print.

First Lady hits the trail!

Democrats send the first lady on the campaign trail- In what is looking to be a rough and tumble midterm campaign for Democrats; they have chosen to send First Lady Michelle Obama out to reassure the American people that the Democrats have it under control. It is very interesting that the Democrats chose to send Mrs. Obama out on the campaign trail without her husband. President Obama certainly isn’t the most popular political figure in the world right now, and many candidates do not want him anywhere near their campaign. However, the First Lady is still relatively popular, something that the party does not want to overlook. I think that ultimately not only is the Obama camp worried about losing the significant majority, they are also worried that the President could become a non-entity early on. When the incumbent President who was hugely popular is now unwelcome on the campaign trail, that is a signal to many that something is wrong. However, this move is also representative of the large role that First Ladies have taken on since the early 1900’s “The expanded publicity surrounding the first lady, coupled with journalists’ framing of her as the personification of American womanhood, fashioned her as an important public woman.” (Burns 44). It is also very interesting that Mrs. Obama maintains a high approval rating while her husband’s has plummeted over recent weeks. I also find it interesting that many are willing to let Mrs. Obama come campaign, but not the President. This is going to be a move that many political analysts and enthusiasts will be watching closely. If it works, this could be the beginning of an interesting trend. If this fails, however, the Obama administration could be in an awfully uncomfortable spot if things don’t turn themselves around. Sources- CNN- http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/21/first-lady-to-campaign-for-democrats/?iref=allsearch
Burns, Lisa- First Ladies and the Fourth Estate.

Obama's Recession Over?

While many American individuals can agree that the recession is not over many government economists would like to disagree. The National Bureau of Economic Research has said that technically the recession has been over since June of 2009. Obama’s plan to help shape a new country and improve our economy to many individual has been a hoax.
Going back to last week’s class and watching the video on the women getting up telling president Obama that she is waiting for the so called, “change,” is how many Americans are feeling. Last week President Obama released this statement “Obviously, for the millions of people who are still out of work, people who have seen their home values decline, people who are struggling to pay the bills day to day, [the recession is] still very real for them." (CNN.com article) Obama realizes it but still is unable to act on anything to make the economy better.
Individuals are still out of work in American and for many it is hard for them to say things are looking better. With midterm elections coming around many of Obama’s promises have been kept and his image is spiraling downward.
In Richard Waterman’s, The Image-Is-Everything Presidency he quotes Waldo Brown talking about Lincoln’s image and states “Lincoln presented himself [to Americans] as a common man.” In addition Waterman also goes on to quote Mary Stuckey who says “Lincoln used his image as a ‘common man’ combined with the biblical clarity of expression to attain and keep popular support.” (26.)
In my opinion this is what most candidates are trying to do in current elections, Obama especially. Since being in office one third of Americans feel the recession is very serious since Obama has been in office, and another 29 percent fell it is moderate. Obama’s image is decreasing more and more with Americans thinking most of what he promised was a lie. Forty eight percent think the president Obama’s policies are never going to help our nation’s economy.
Obama has been facing criticism from many Americans because of what he has been doing since being elected. Many feel he is not getting the job done with strengthening our economy and even our entire country. People are saying that his work takes time and will slowly start to help our country. To me I do not think any of Obama’s promises are going to come through but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Sources:
Silverleib, Alan. "Recession Not Over, Public Says - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 26 Sept. 2010. Web. 26 Sept. 2010. .

Waterman, Richard W., Robert Wright, and Clair Gilbert. Saint. "Chapter 2." The Image Is Everything Presidency: Dilemmas in American Leadership. Boulder, Colo. [u.a.: Westview, 1999. Print.

The Cycle of Rising Expectations

President Obama campaigned on the ideas of hope and change. Americans elected him to the presidency because of the image he constructed, his policies, and the countless promises that were made. However, two years after taking office, the disconnect between the President and the public has never been wider.

According to Richard Waterman, author of Image is Everything Presidency, “Candidates for office made more generous promises in order to get elected, which encouraged the public to expect more action from its presidents, which in turn encouraged presidents to promise more action, which further encouraged the public to expect more from their presidents” (37). This quote exemplifies the idea that more often than not presidents made lofty and empty promises that are difficult for them to keep.

For instance, throughout the campaign of 2008 as well as the past two years, Obama has made promises to bring about change in regards to certain salient issues such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current state of the economy, and the unemployment rate. Frequently, Americans listen to President Obama speak eloquently and passionately about a specific issue and turn the television off and expect change just to occur. Unfortunately it is not that easy and change cannot occur overnight. As a result of this, the expectation gap transpires.

The expectation gap is “the idea that there is a gap between what the public expects of its presidents and what presidents actually can accomplish (Waterman 5). Two years after taking office, President Obama is receiving heat from all directions on his inability to stay true to what he campaigned on and promised to change. In an article, “Disappointed Supporters Question Obama,” published in the New York Times by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, many Obama supporters expressed their dissatisfaction with the past two years. One African-American woman said, “I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for. I’ve been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things in a meaning way for the middle class and I’m waiting sir, I’m waiting. I still don’t feel it yet.” This woman illustrates the expectation gap because she was anticipating fulfilled promises and change for the middle class and she has yet to feel that change. Many people in America can relate to this feeling. Several people voted for Obama because of what he stood for and as time goes on, many feel that he is moving further and further away from those original views and values.

The main problem with promises and expectations is that this almost always sets the president up for inevitable failure. In the New York Times article, Obama states, “my goal here is not to convince you that everything is where it needs to be,” the president said, “but what I am saying is that we are moving in the right direction.” This quote illustrates the cycle of rising expectations, which occurs because the public expects more than the president can deliver. The president is set up to fail before he even steps into office because the public has this idealistic notion that “the man in the white house can do something about everything” (Waterman 6).

The cycle of rising expectations occurs within an administration because presidents make too many promises in an effort to get elected. Once elected, the president is unable to deliver on all of his promises and in turn the public becomes disappointed with the candidate. President Obama is currently facing the expectation gap where the public expects more than he can deliver. The American public needs to be patient, we are moving in the right direction and eventually change will come.

Fighting a losing battle: the Obama Administration & the expectation gap

With the midterm election right around the corner, the idea of this election season being a referendum of President Obama is seeing more traction in the media coverage. As President Obama’s approval numbers are slipping, it is hard to deny that the gap between what Americans expect from the administration and what the president is constitutionally and realistically able to achieve is a significant factor. It seems as though many of the swing voters who helped elect Barack Obama are disappointed and might swing their vote in a different direction in the coming midterm election.

In chapter five of “Presidents and the People” Mel Laracey discusses Benjamin Harrison’s approach to the presidency. Laracey quotes Harrison as saying, “There is not much that a President can do to shape [national] policy. He is charged under the Constitution with the duty of making suggestions to Congress, but, after all, legislation originates with the Congress of the United States, and the policy of our laws is directed by it. The President may veto, but he cannot frame a bill.”

The constraints on the office of the presidency that Harrison highlighted is something today’s voters have seemed to forget. Constitutionally, the legislative powers of the president are few and far between. The President is expected to give some form of a State of the Union Address outlining his or her agenda. And the President also has the power to veto legislation; however a veto can be overturned by a two-thirds majority in both houses. So essentially, the President can make suggestions and reject legislation, but the President cannot draft legislation. However, all of the legislation in the past year and a half has somehow been attributed to President Obama. Whether he is given the glory or the blame, the media (and consequentially the voters) have seemed to create this idea that Obama is the Legislator-in-Chief.

Maybe this misunderstanding of the President’s powers stems from the expectation of Presidents to use their informal ‘power of persuasion’ to ensure legislative achievements. President Obama’s success seems to depend on his ability to persuade Congress, other political actors, the media, and the voters to further his agenda. But even though Obama was able to successfully ‘go public’ during his campaign, he hasn’t been able to mobilize the public in a way that yields significant support. Despite having a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, Obama still wasn’t able to fulfill the public’s expectations.

How does the Obama administration plan to rejuvenate support for the Democratic party while also saving the President’s reputation? Send Vice President Joe Biden to talk with the media, of course.

Last week, The Washington Post’s opinion writer Stephen Stromberg wrote a piece about how Biden essentially is telling the Democratic base to grow up -- or at least “get over its disillusionment and rejuvenate itself for the midterm elections”. Stromberg notes how Biden listed Obama’s legislative accomplishments while challenging liberals to reconsider their impatience with the pace of reform in Washington. And as Stromberg put it, Biden “reminded them that staying at home [on election day] means the other guy wins -- and that they really wouldn’t like the other guy.”

Stromberg believes that progressives have to take the blame for their own disappointment, seeing as they placed “unmeetable expectations on Obama.” He also projects what the party will do if things go bad for the Democrats on election night. Stromberg wrote: “Many will blame the president, not themselves, arguing that Obama should have articulated a grand, progressive vision -- which would have inspired about a third of the nation and concerned the rest. They'll also blame him for not fighting harder for a larger stimulus that didn't have the votes, for a public option that didn't have the votes, for card-check legislation that didn't have the votes, to close Guantanamo faster than Congress would let him or to end don't ask don't tell before lawmakers would allow it.” Stromberg labels this attitude of the Democratic party as “self-fulfilling self-righteousness”.

It seems as though the public is not alone in their misguided expectations for President Obama. Democratic members of Congress have their own expectation gap concerning the President. Many of the legislators who rode into office on Obama’s coattails in 2008 seem to be distancing themselves from him in their 2010 campaign efforts. Apparently since the President has been given the burden of blame with recent legislation, members do not want to be associated with his unpopular approval ratings. But as Stromberg argues, if these members lose their re-election, they will probably be quick to say President Obama didn’t do enough to secure their seat. With unrealistic expectations from both Congress and the public (as well as less than favorable commentary from the media), it’s no surprise the administration has trouble in successfully ‘going public’.

Stephen Stromberg: “Joe Biden scolds progressive -- and he’s right”

September 16, 2010

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/09/joe_biden_scolds_progressives.html

'Sunday Talk Show Circuit' the same as 'Presidential Newspapers'

In this week’s reading in “President of the People” by Mel Larecy, the author writes on the topic of the presidential newspapers. The author wrote, “…every American president supported a newspaper that was regarded as at least the semiofficial voice of his administration (Larecy, 47).”

According to the author, there were no non-biased or non-partisan papers during the first half of the nineteenth century, in fact newspapers not only promoted a candidate, but were often loud in their advocacy of the candidate, or a specific political party. Larecy described presidential newspapers as, “newspapers established and heavily subsidized—via subscriptions from supporters and profits from lucrative government printing contracts- by the president to attack their opponents and announce and defend their public policy positions (Larevy 47).”

On Sunday mornings.], it’s common for politicians, whether candidates, retired, elected, or federal officials to make what is called the Sunday morning talk show circuit, to promote a certain message, whether their own or the one of their government. While some guests stay for only one show, it’s clear when the same secretary of a department is on the same 4 Sunday morning talk shows that there is an agenda and a statement that his or her department wants to get out, much the same way politicians have done in the past with their newspapers. Although many of these talk shows are not so black or white as to say they are in support of one candidate or another, there are at times cues to tell the viewer who the show is in favor of based on what guests they promote and those they do not show.

In this week’s “TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads” by Jason Linkins on The Huffington Post, Linkins does an examination of the messages and guests on several of the Sunday shows.

Linkins wrote about Austan Goolsbee, the head of the Council on Economic Advisors. Goolsbee was on both Fox News Sunday, as well as This Week with Christiane Amanpour. On both of the shows, Goolsbee spoke about the current status of the economy, as well as unemployment.

Linkins wrote, “Unemployment is "going to stay high," Goolsbee says, continuing to de-Romer the White House message on the employment rate. He does say that the infrastructure package "could have significant" impact on employment, in a positive direction, but he wisely begs off making a prediction (see also: Romer, Christina).”

Linkins excerpt here was taken from “This Week with Christiane Amanpour,” however his same message was seen in “Fox News Sunday.”

‘’I think it's fair to say that...it's going to be a long battle." To get out of the recession -- which started in 2007! -- it's going to be a hard haul. Unemployment will be high for a long time to come. "I don't expect it to go down appreciably.’ And thus, your 2012 election season expectations are set!” Wrote Linkins.

The messages that Goolsbee is trying to get across in both shows are about unemployment and the economy, and it is apparent on both shows that Goolsbee was sent there with a message in mind that he wanted to get across. While neither of the shows that Goolsbee was on endorsed him or any idea he had the utilization of the Sunday Morning Talk show circuit to get a message across from the government is very similar to the government sending messages out to the public through the newspaper medium years ago as presented in Larecy.

In Ad Wars, Democrats Shy From Ties to Own Party

This week's edition of the New York Times featured an article, "In Ad Wars, Democrats Shy From Ties to Own Party" written by Jeff Zeleny that discusses the current issue of advertising wars between the Democrat and Republican parties. Ever since Eisenhower started televised advertisements, political figures have used advertisements to get crucial messages out to the public. Mel Laracey states in the introduction of Presidents and the People that post-twentieth century presidents "ignore the use of other nineteenth-century presidential communications tools, such as the interview, the press release, and letters written by presidents to be read in public or published in newspapers...because these messages were published in newspapers, sometimes even before their delivery to Congress, it is clear that some presidents aimed their messages as much or more at the public as at Congress." (Laracey 12) It seems that the present-day television ads, especially for the upcoming mid-term elections, are used by candidates as a tool to attack opponents--rather than strengthen their own appeal.

Zeleny mentions that many Democratic representatives, such as Glenn Nye, Walt Minnick, Suzanne M. Kosmas, and Mark Schauer are not discussing their involvement to a specific political party, but instead they are making it a point to tell the public that although they were once supporters of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's policies, they are now as furious and opposed to the current crisis as their own supporters. It seems that at such a important time to recognize successes and faults, Democratic candidates are ashamed of what has happened to the country and are not being loyal to the primary goals and values of their party. "A look at the advertising themes and images being employed by democrats shows all the ways they are trying to personalize their contests and avoid being defined as ideological partners of President Obama's or as part of the Washington establishment." (Zeleny) These democratic political figures do not want to be associated with Obama and Pelosi, and make it apparent to their republican opponents that their policies and beliefs differ from our presidents.

These vulgar advertisements against one another has created 'ad wars'; the American government has become too focused on their image in the public than representing their policies to the public. There are other ways of reaching out to the public other than attacking the current administration. Some Democratic candidates, such as Governer Chet Culver of Iowa have been pleading the public for a second chance. "I’ve made my share of mistakes, but they were honest mistakes, and I’ve listened to your concerns and I’ve grown on the job,” said Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa “I hope you give us the chance.” (Zeleny New York Times) Taking ownership one's mistakes and asking for forgiveness from the public shows a higher level of maturity and responsibility than making attacks on the current administration, and how their policies are not of agreement with others. After all, there will always be disagreements in politics.

-Rebecca Schneider

Will Washington DC “Go Public” As America’s Next Hollywood?

This Sunday’s edition of the Washington Post featured an opinion piece centered on the issue of political science, it’s current place within our nation’s capital, and whether or not the subject is even relevant to the happenings in our modernized system of government. Despite the fact that the Average Joe would assume government and political science go together like peanut butter and jelly, from Washington experts, there seems to be a disconnect. Staff writer, Ezra Klein, discussed his experience at the American Political Science Association’s convention at Marriott Wardman Park, where he saw the separation with his own eyes.

Klein mentions that many major political players were no shows at the event, and that is was no surprise to many key political scientists, and spoke to them about their wishes for American political figures. This shed light on where political figures concerns are as well as the expectations the American society has for our leaders. To sum it up, American government is seemingly too focused on discussing image and “going public” than acting out initiatives and changing public policy, and the professionals in poli sci don’t disagree. The consensus is that big, hyped speeches don’t really make a big difference. Sure, our Commander in Chief can talk until he’s blue in the face about a platform and plans- but where’s the effort and result? Americans aren’t seeing it. It isn’t being showcase when the president “goes public.” What America does see during this public time is more adequate for a tabloid than the latest from nation’s capital. We are now focused on personal lives and on goings of these people, such as Bristol Palin’s appearance on dancing with the stars, Michelle Obama’s arm exercises and Meghan McCain’s tweets. Granted, some of this is framed by the media. That sort of framing has been happening since the country’s first exposure to presidency, especially with politics’ leading ladies (Burns). However, according to the analysis and statistics presented at convention, keeping the American people in the loop hasn’t drastically swayed public opinion. When it comes to crunch time, we expect major communication and action. But during the normal scheme of things, we as a society get caught up in the relatability of our political figures, not their policy. This has justified the focus on grooming political image. Political scientist, George Edwards from Texas A&M University researched speech effectiveness and came up with findings that show big speeches causing little change in public opinion, even during key moments of a president’s term. This leads us to believe that we’re too caught up in the latest scandals. Instead, we should be using our voices to check up on our leaders and holding them to their platforms.

In reality, today’s political figures are more concerned with approval ratings, than consulting political scientists for a fresh perspective on policy making. Laracey’s “Presidents and the People” argues if going public is something we’ve developed as a society and whether it’s the constitutionally mandated for modern presidencies. Klein’s article argues that it’s not necessarily vital to be constantly communicating. Yes, interaction with constituents is important, but it’s not going to make or break the president come election time because Edward’s study concluded that voters aren’t quick to change their mind off words alone. Also, it’s not constitutionally mandated. There’s no mention of requiring political officials to “go public,” they are only mandated to govern and act in the best interest of the people.

All in all, American politics may need to reexamine its priorities. By no means should politicians cease communication. However, their words should be concise. Speak less, but say more, and then act with good intent. As American voters, in control of who speaks to us as leaders, we need to be aware of the function of government, do our homework on the happenings with our boarders and be firm in our vision for these 50 states. Politicians are not movie stars, and being glamorous is not a function of public office. The first lady does not need to be a knockout, just a strong and moral woman of character. Politics shouldn’t be a fad; it should be our founding principals coming to live within our country.

-Kali Pulkkinen

Klein, Ezra. "Poli Sci 101: Presidential Speeches Don't Matter, and Lobbyists Don't Run D.C." Washingtonpost.com - Nation, World, Technology and Washington Area News and Headlines. 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 Sept. 2010. .