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://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.
Television definitely has set a new higher standard for candidates to have a positive image. For the 1960 election, Kennedy and Nixon were the first candidates to be televised for presidential debates. It is said that the audience listening through the radio believed Nixon won the debate because he sounded firm and knowledgeable. However, the new audience for television said Kennedy won the debate because Kennedy acted calm, cool and collective. His positive and charming attitude paid off during his presidency because in retrospect, Kennedy didn't do that much while in office. As Waterman explains for Kennedy's three years in office, "his foreign and domestic policy accomplishments were relatively few. His presidency virtually commenced with the Bay of Pigs disaster. The Vienna Conference with Khrushchev was likewise perceived by Kennedy's contemporaries as a failure, and encouraged Soviets to proceed with the construction of the Berlin Wall (48)." Waterman also adds, which as a 20 year old born almost 30 years after Kennedy's death I agree too, that we don't collectively remember his policies or crises, we remember the young president from Boston and his eagerness to bring life into Washington.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed like Obama was going to be the new Kennedy of this generation, but so far his ratings have been faltering. What was the difference between the 1960 campaign and the 2008 one? Perhaps it was because in 1960 the television medium was too new and everyone was collectively amazed at the new possibilities it brought to them. Flash forward 50 years to now and the press and anyone working in TV has had the power and ability to manipulate the agenda setting. So even if Obama was or still is viewed as the one who came in promising hope and a new life, there are still way too many media outlets that will say other wise.
Looking at the similarities between Kennedy’s campaign and Obama’s campaign is a great way to see how image truly can be everything in a presidential campaign. In class we discussed that President Obama’s campaign team purposely used images and phrases to remind people of JFK, because JFK is remembered even today as one of the most influential and popular presidents of all time, even though when you look at what he did while in office you might say he wasn’t very accomplished. But what JFK had going for him was his image, and that image was effective in rallying the public. President Obama’s team attempted put this image into effect once again, and obviously it worked. The difference is though, what is he doing in office? As discussed on page 51 of Waterman, his campaign seemed to have put public relations and projecting a certain image before the substance of his policies. Although the image is what got him into office, his policies and his ability to effective lead and improve the overwhelming problems our country is facing is what keeps his likability and support. It seems as though his team put all the eggs in one basket during campaign season and didn’t think ahead to the major problems they would face concerning actually government and enacting the change they spoke of so passionately. Unlike as in JFK’s era, we now have the internet where we can access as much information as we want, instead of just relying on the television to see the candidates and hear policies. I think because of the internet, candidates need to find a better balance between projecting an image that people will respond positively too, as well as making policies that most people will respond positively to. As Waterman discusses, this has been a problem throughout the nations history as there have been presidents who have done so much, but aren’t as recognized for it because their image was too plain, boring, or unflattering. Then there have been presidents who didn’t accomplish a whole lot during their time in office and yet are remembered as great leaders because of their likable image.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though President Obama is a master of being able to rally support when he needs it most. His ability to have such a massive following during the 08' campaign really highlighted his ability speak eloquently and with a purpose. Or what some people thought to have a purpose. As we saw in one of the videos watched in class he has failed to keep to a lot of the promises he has made which is why he is in the position of some uncertainty during these mid terms. President Obama certainly had an appeal to him during the 08' election that no other president had before, however with the continuous down-spiral of the economy and the looming war his support has to no surprise, gone down. I think that if Obama can change his message to one of patience and trust instead of keeping on the same path he has been on since his election, he and the democrats will come out victorious.
ReplyDeleteI think that what people are still looking for is a leader to emerge out of Obama, one that can fulfill the promises he once made while at the same time continuing on with his overhaul of society. I see many comparisons with President Kennedy in his new and youthful persona and I think that similar to how it worked for Kennedy, it can continue to work for him. Waterman wrote in Ch. 5 about how the growing importance of television was key to Nixon's strategy, similar with the radio and Roosevelt. I think that if President Obama really stresses the importance of reaching those young voters again, like he did in 08, he will be successful. At this day in age projecting a confident image that people take to is just as important as the policies you will implement and Obama needs to stress his image once again.
I agree with James's post, and when he says "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." because I think that many of the Americans who voted for Obama are either totally against him now that he has shown what he can do in office (or lack there of) and the rest of his then-supporters still support him, and still want the "change" and "hope" he campaigned for in 08. They are either very loyal to Obama, or very desperate and naive to believe that change will come-- if they want it enough--if they stand by Obama enough. But, as Waterman states, "[in order to survive Washington politics], you must not confuse the image with the reality". This is important for Obama to realize, as well as the general public. Obama must realize that this great image he still holds must continue to be great if his work shines, and the public must realize that the image of "hope" and "change" sounds really promising, but it is in fact far from the reality that we, as a country, must come to terms with.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of the twenty-four hour news and the ubiquitous nature of mass media, a gradual shift in politics has occurred. Years ago politics dealt with the current problems and policies. With the advent of television and other media outlets politics shifted its emphasis from policies to image. Now a days, a politician’s image is just as important, if not more important as their platform.
ReplyDeleteRichard M. Waterman, author of The Image-Is-Everything Presidency, argues that the image is what wins the presidency. Many people make decisions on who to vote for based on the way the candidate dresses, speaks, behaves, and expresses his or hers opinion. Many politicians have recognized this shift that has taken place and as a result, candidates spend more time manipulating and shaping their image. Consequently, Waterman argues, “as candidates focus on their personal images, the issue-agendas that concern parties are all but totally lost in the campaigns” (Waterman 92). This indicates that more often than not, campaigns are focused more the image rather than the issues.
The shift that has occurred in politics is going to be harmful to the nation. In most campaigns, candidates hire image consultants to help them carefully manipulate the way they appear to the public. However, as more and more people focus on the image rather than the platform, the decisions made on election days are increasingly uninformed and in turn the people we place in office could turn out to be what we thought they were during the campaign.
Throughout many of these posts we discuss that image is everything, in terms of campaigning, approval and the public. I haven’t yet felt we’ve discussed image is everything in terms of the presidency and international relations—which it absolutely may be. Through analysis of the media, I feel we many times lose track of the many uses of image, as we apply it to our (the public) main opinion, but not those that matter (the jobs and presidential tasks). This is a concern about Obama’s image that I feel the public should give more attention to, and then Obama.
ReplyDelete“Hope” and “Change” are motifs that apply to all people. They are not necessarily presidential words. Obama undoubtedly borrowed themes from previous presidents, but I felt and still feel he has stayed true to his beliefs and the man he is. While tactics may not create 180 degree spins, they are a new and unique process. They are a change, from what we have experienced. And if Obama thinks that “firing up” his audience is what the country needs, I feel we should stop assuming it’s for his own benefit, but that of the country his entire job and role in the country is dedicated to.
In Chapter 4 of Burns, she discusses First Ladies as political activists and the amount of opposition women in the position faced. She says “By ‘going public’ through the press in the earlier part of the century, first ladies had alleviated the stigma surrounding female publicity and normalized women’s roles as public figures in their own right” (109). As much as it is swept under the rug, I feel Obama’s “image” is African American, and therefore he is breaking the mold, which never happens smoothly.
Lots of issues have been blamed or cited about Obama’s term thus far. I feel that if we are arguing “image is everything,” we must be honest about the extra challenge President Obama is facing, that many self righteous American’s are neglecting to point out.
When we talk specifically about television as a medium and the effect it has on elections, I can't help but wonder if the same presidents would have been elected in years past. Would Obama have been elected if not for television?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to look at a popular president like John F. Kennedy for this reason. According to Waterman, JFK held high approval ratings throughout his presidency, and 76% of the public rated his actual performance as president as either "good" or "excellent." However, Waterman states that, when reviewing his presidency, one will find that he did not actually achieve very much when compared to other presidents. Since JFK was so young, handsome, and good at public speaking, it is very likely that television was largely responsible for his high approval ratings, as he was able to uphold his desired image throughout the duration of his presidency (Waterman 48-49).
As we talked about in class, Obama's low approval ratings have his public relations team going haywire, trying to find any solution to boost his image. In a desperate attempt to do so, they've sent Michelle Obama out on the campaign trail. In the past and even today, "first ladies played various political roles, including presidential advisor, campaigner, and social advocate" (Burns 111). This is exactly what Michelle Obama is doing for her husband in order to regain some faith in the President. Perhaps if people like Michelle Obama, they will continue to support her husband. While, personally, I don't think this makes any sense, it is unfortunately the way public perception works.
It is so interesting to watch history repeat itself. The similarities between the Obama campaign and the Kennedy campaign are uncanny (hopefully that is the only similarity...). In The Image-Is-Everything Presidency the pros and cons regarding Kennedy’s presidency are extraordinarily similar to today’s incumbent. Waterman states that the public perception of Kennedy is still to this day quite positive. But Kennedy’s accomplishments in the White House were actually not that great. Is this how our grandchildren are going to remember this current presidency? Is this what is going to be taught in future history textbooks?
ReplyDeleteI am not arguing that President Obama has not done anything substantial so far in his presidency because that is a lie. His administration has done alright considering the state in which our country was left. I wonder if President Obama is mainly going to be remembered for his 2008 campaign and the energy surrounding it. Will Obama be remembered as a President that increased our national debt and having to deal with national unemployment?
I personally believe that Obama’s memory is going to take the Kennedy effect. He is going to be remembered as the man he was in 2008. He was a breath of fresh air in Washington and promised America that “hope” and “change” were soon to come. Kennedy is not often remembered for the Bay of Pigs Invasion or the Vienna Conference. As Waterman stated, “What we most remember today are the images of a virile young president, speaking stridently to the nation about his upbeat vision of the future.” Does any of this sound familiar?
With its instant accessibility, technology in all forms has shaped modern day politics. Starting with the radio, followed by television and now the internet, politics is available in mediums of technology everywhere we turn. Being the first television president, Ike Eisenhower demonstrated how to successfully utilize television to his advantage. His innovation of incorporating TV commercials into campaigns has become the norm for all presidential elections. Eisenhower was a president who knew how to control his image and be seen as he wanted to. Obama took a similar approach to this during his campaign reaching out through social media and wanting to be seen as the person to create change. He appealed specifically to the younger voter age groups. He kept his message always positive and optimistic by constantly stating “Yes we can” while also centering his campaign on the concepts of hope and change. Through his inspirational message he made people excited for the future. The internet has created a whole new ball game for politics. Obama is the president who has best used the internet to his advantage. He was able to reach voters through facebook, twitter and even the I- phone application. Obama was able to use this to his advantage, being seen as young while utilizing modern technologies. He was constantly building an image for himself. In his book, “The Image-Is-Everything Presidency,” Richard W. Waterman wrote:
ReplyDelete"While images, in general, are everything, the image of the moment is nothing more than a convenience, meant to sell a candidate or an incumbent president like a box of cereal. In this process, the White House staff, and presidents themselves, have become more concerned with image creation than with the substance of public policy." (Waterman 68-69)
Politicians and presidents are often so focused on image building that their policies take a backseat. As voters it is important that we look beyond the surface image and take a closer look at the policy behind the candidate.
The “image is everything presidency” has been a reoccurring theme throughout the semester. The presidency is a position in which image does matter. People are voting for you, so how a candidate is perceived is essential. Television just adds another element to the whole idea of constructing an image. One president who did this perfectly was President John F. Kennedy.
ReplyDeleteUntil last class my perception of JFK was certainly tailored to the image he had built for himself. It was clear that he hadn’t really accomplished much in his presidency, but overall he had seemed to be well like and a respected president. However, after the insight on his communication genius, it became clear that there really was a myth surrounding JFK. The perception and national image he had created for himself in actuality was not a true representation of him as an individual. Television was one of the outlets that allowed him to do so.
As the Waterman reading pointed out television really changed the game when it came to politics. It allowed image to be constructed to a new all time high and it has either made or broke presidential candidates since its inception. As technology progresses it will be interesting to see where the political realm heads and what will become the new game changer in the political arena.