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. .