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.
Political figures utilize the media to publicize their stance on issues at hand, to get their ideas out to the public, to gain support, to allow viewers to put a face to their name and to be recognized. During elections, politicians utilize media sources more than ever. Lately the sources of media that politicians are being placed in and are choosing to place themselves in are causing people to question their credibility. Kali discussed current day individuals in the political spotlight receiving media attention based on Bristol Palin’s reality television show role in “Dancing with the Stars” and Michelle Obama’s personal arm workout routine. This causes some to question if the public should be more concerned about the First Lady’s arm muscles or what issues she is currently participating in. Is the women’s talk-show, “The View” the appropriate news source for the President of the United States of America to appear on? Is the appropriate place for leading political figures of the nation on the cover of magazine tabloids and entertainment television networks? There should be more attention brought to the decisions that political figures are making on behalf of the American people rather than which designer suit they wore or their latest family drama. It is becoming more and more apparent that politics are often being mixed with the entertainment industry. These are two sectors that should not need the other to thrive, but by the American public purchasing the tabloids, magazines and increasing the number of visits to these political entertainment stories, they continue to provide the entertainment industry with interest which results in readership and most importantly, profits. I agree with Kali that often times the American public is too caught up in latest publicity stunts that political figures find themselves in that these scandals can easily overshadow the candidates’ platforms.
ReplyDeleteIn Richard Waterman’s book, “The Image-Is Everything Presidency,” Waterman discussed how Ronald Reagan was considered the “ultimate media president” (53). President Reagan was an actor who became a politician. This is opposite to the current “trend” of politicians trying to become entertainment figures. Reagan’s career began as an actor so he did not need to utilize these at the time, less prevalent sources of media. But he was able to use his already established name to venture over to the political side. Reagan is one of the few exceptions who went from an entertainment figure to a political figure. This is not to say that he did not utilize different media sources because he was very successful in making good use of the media and images, but he did not use his political career to amuse others.
Twenty-four hour news allows for constant media coverage and as a result the media does not only report on the important and controversial issues, but also the latest drama surrounding politicians in their personal life. Because of this, politics has become increasing similar to the entertainment industry. The media coverage has altered the way in which politics are carried out. A field that should focus on action and change now is primarily dominated by image, speeches, personal scandals and drama, approval ratings, and public appearances. Politicians have become more and more like celebrities. Just like we know the ins and outs of Lindsay Lohan’s latest trip to rehab or the most up to date drama involving Brad Pitt Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Aniston, we also know everything from the miniscule details of President Obama’s family vacation to Martha’s Vineyard to First Lady Michelle Obama’s arm exercises. I agree that the political arena is becoming more and more like Hollywood.
ReplyDeletePolitics is talk. Kali states that, “American government is seemingly too focused on discussing image and ‘going public’ than acting on initiatives and changing public policy,” meaning that politicians strategically pick the events they will speak at and the events they will attend in an effort to better themselves in the eyes of the public. However, these speeches are simply words that offer Americans lofty and empty promises while simultaneously providing them with idealistic solutions that deceive them into believing. Rarely does a politician deliver a speech with realistic concrete solutions, thus reaffirming that politics tends to be more talk than action. In The Image-Is-Everything Presidency, author Richard M. Waterman notes that, “candidates for office made more generous promises in order to get elected, which encouraged the public to expect more from their presidents. This cycle of rising expectations created the conditions for inevitable failure” (37). This quote exemplifies the idea that politicians often get caught in a web of promises. Once a candidate makes one promise and the result is a spike in public approval rates, he or she continues to make more and more empty promises, while at the same time the public begins to expect more and more of the candidate.
In the last few years, Americans have become so engrossed in social media and technology that many have forgotten many morals America is based upon. During FDR's or Kennedy's or even as recent as Reagan's administration, people followed closely to political agenda. People understood that their votes, their collective public opinion and their voice made a difference in society whether it was on a local, state or national scale. With the creation of the internet and technology rapidly changing, we are currently in an Information Age where we have access to almost virtually anything we want or more importantly, want to know. The problem with that is "what we want to know", is usually biased opinions that are fabricated into facts, and trivial aspects of politics and government.
ReplyDeleteWith the rise of social media, young Americans are constantly searching for approval from their peers, and are able to reach out to people they haven't met before (i.e blogs, youtube, etc.) They use the social media as a scapegoat to the point where adults and politicians are now affected by this. Politicians care more now for approval rating than ever before. But what is their approval rating based on? For many, views of President Obama are influenced by his down to earth nature and ability to charm anyone he comes into contact with. It is based on Michelle and the daughters, and what they have been doing on vacation or how they are dressing. Would this be the case fifty years ago? In some cases, yes it would. The people want to know they can relate to their leaders. However, with cable television and the internet, the people see this image everywhere, it is always in constant reach, but the image of a good government is hard to come by unless one really sits downs and does his research. And with all this socialization going on, will many people care to find out?
Kali makes an excellent point about politicians being so focused on image and approval that their commitment to actual politics begins to slip. The problem is that, while we take pride in democracy and "power to the people," it means that image becomes more important than ability when it comes to campaigning. Klein's observations at the APSA serve as a perfect example of the new set of priorities that today's presidents have. Say, for example, presidential candidates A and B are running for office. Candidate A may be entirely committed to his behind-the-scenes work, while candidate B skips important meetings and conferences and does little in terms of policy making. Unfortunately, a candidate's behind-the-scenes behavior very seldom reaches the public, for many Americans would be skeptical of any news report that exposes candidate B's inabilities and would likely confuse it for a smear campaign. If candidate A's image does not exceed that of candidate B's, it doesn't matter how good he or she is at his/her job. He with the best image wins.
ReplyDeleteThe reading in the first chapter of First Ladies and the Fourth Estate talks about how First Ladies have traditionally become objects of the media. Just as the media is critical of the president, it seems they show no mercy for first ladies, either. Although they are not being voted into office, the image of the first lady is shaped by the media. While one might think that it may be more important for the president to be doing behind-the-scenes work, the actions of the first lady may actually have a more direct impact on her image. If a first lady dedicates herself to positive issues and charities, she may earn a title like the "Queen of Hearts," like Dolly Madison. However, a first lady who chooses not to use her newfound power for the better may be considered "too queenly."
In the early days of the newspaper in the eighteenth century, or even before the rise of television, it would have been a lot easier for a candidate to have both -- image AND ability. A quote from Chancellor Henry Brougham in Chapter 2 of Presidents and the People sums up this idea perfectly; in summary, the quote states that, at the start of political newspapers, people did not care who the editor was. Instead, they used newspapers "solely to learn what is thought by the best-informed men of that particular party" (48). In these days, it was standard practice for people to take time out of their day to read the news and actually learn the policies of presidential candidates.
Nowadays, however, there are so many different types of media that people rarely feel the need to go out of their way to find news. Americans are overloaded with so much information that it makes it difficult to find the truth in it all, and thus we have no choice but to focus on image instead of information.
This idea that "DC is the new Hollywood" is not the most out-of-this-world theory. During the Presidency of George Washington, Martha's journey to New York was front page news. We learn in Burn's book, "First Ladies and the Fourth Estate," that although she may have been overwhelmed by the attention (3), Martha was already creating a relationship with the media.
ReplyDeleteIn todays high strung society we hear horror stories of the media's relationship with politics. Do we really need to know where the First Lady got her wardrobe? Is it imperative, groundbreaking news to know where a former First Child is getting married? Clearly our National Security is not compromised without these stories, but they ARE interesting. This idea makes me think.
Are these mediocre new stories such a bad thing? Is it so horrible to have political news with celebrity gossip? Granted the newspapers at the time were not filled with tales of young actors battling drug addictions or athletes sexually harassing reporters. Still, one has to believe that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Mary Todd Lincoln, for example, was one of the first First Ladies to be targeted by the press in a negative way (28). One has to question whether she or anyone else in politics would prefer bad publicity rather than no publicity at all. It is an awful Catch-22.
To those who know nothing more about politics than what he or she reads in US Weekly Magazine or on Perezhilton.com, I say "good for you." As cliche as it may sound, one has to be thankful that we live in a country where it is okay to discuss politics openly regardless of the medium or subject matter. What if the press didn't follow Martha Washington to New York? Perhaps Abigail Adams would have done something to cement a relationship with the media.
Michael Martineau
ReplyDeleteThe Statement the Washington DC is being referred to as the “new Hollywood” is both true and false in a way. Political figures today are now looked at by many as celebrities because of all they do in the public eye. I believe many of our political officers are chosen by many individuals solely because of the way the present themselves. Instead of what they stand for people would like a president who they could see themselves having a beer with or shooting pool with. This is where I can see DC being crowned the new Hollywood. In other more literal ways I see this statement as being completely false in every way. Hollywood is known to many as the celebrity city full of actors and actresses, vocalists, producers, and more. Taking all of that into effect New York City should be named the “new Hollywood” is anything because it has both “real” celebrities and political celebrities.
“The consensus is that big, hyped speeches don’t really make a big difference.” Kali makes a good point here that I agree with. Many political officers will give these long drawn out speeches that bore people listening at home. Many of the speeches will confuse individuals who are watching and in a way I feel as if that is what they are trying to do. I feel many political officers try to confuse the general public to try and make what they are saying sound appealing but in real words they are doing something different. In a way this is them acting and trying to make you believe everything they are trying to propose. Use of the media allows the President and other government officials to show their skills, gaining the public’s support.
Kali make some very valid points in this blog posting. That being said I think the argument can be spread even further and applied not only to the political science realm but also to the generalized American public. We live in a society where image is everything. It is not just politicians who are concerned with what the public's think of them. Think of everyday relations amongst one another. People are constantly striving to have a good image or reputation. This derives from a human desire for people to like us.
ReplyDeleteWhen you take this concept and apply to someone such as a political figure, the notion of them going public pretty much becomes a necessity. They are in a field in which job placement is determined by the masses. Therefore, unlike most of the American population, not only is image important to them but it is a determining factor in their ability to possess a job, maintain it, and receive promotion.
As a result of that there is also an unvarying self awareness of their image. Constantly polls are being conducted which put a number on their success rate and ultimately their image with the public. This causes politicians to be conscious of their ability to be reelected. In an election season, if their numbers are down, going public is often the only option.
Finally, it seems doubtful that the bridge between political scientists and politicians will be filled. The reason for this is political scientists in essence are not policy makers. Rather, their standpoints and belief systems come from a theoretical perspective. The problem with that is theory can be a tremendous idea; but it is generally just that, an idea. Often when theory is applied to practicality it doesn’t work.
The only way I feel that there will be a change in either areas, is if the American population changes. I believe it to be a fair assessment to claim that the driving force behind politics is the mass opinion of the American public. Therefore, in order for the relationship between theorists and realists or between the politicians and their public, there needs to be a drastic change in American mindset. Since that does not seem likely to occur, it is doubtful change will either.