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?
In the article you posted it talks about Barbara Boxer who is battling for her fourth term. It goes on to talk about the amounts of money and the kinds of ethics that her opponent Carly Fiorina has gone through in order to battle Ms. Boxer which really portrays The Climbing Toll of Image-Building: Time and Money section of Chapter 4 in Waterman. Without large amounts of money and public support candidates stand no chance for election and in order to cement your spot you must building a plan years in advance. All of the aspects that you spoke about are certainly true and its rather disturbing that now a days image is just as if not more important than substance. I think as a country we seriously need to start educating ourselves in our current politics and political system as a whole, especially because we are a TRUE democracy and what the general population is feeling will be heard.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that it is not entirely up to the citizens to be fully educated and aware of what candidates are doing in their campaigning and what not. I agree that we must hold the candidates accountability for displaying their TRUE intentions if elected, instead of feeding the general public their usual fluff and lies which we tend to fall for over and over. Im not sure if we are better off like it was in the old days where we hear about candidates through word of mouth or if we are better off with this relatively new electric media, where the truth and what is important seem to be overlooked.
Politicians regularly pose negative campaign ads against their opponents. These smear-ads that we have learned about present a candidate in a negative light. Unfortunately, many times the information used in these attack ads are incorrect. Viewers who are not the most informed often absorb this information without assessing the validity of the content of the advertisement. Voters can look to the website FactCheck.org to analyze the validity of the advertisement. When viewers don’t analyze this content by looking further into this information they can be misinformed. This is why it is important that voters have a working knowledge of not only the candidate they are voting for but also the opponent. Choosing to only know the positive selling points of a candidate means not knowing the whole side of the story. That is why it is important that voters stay tuned and learn about both candidates beyond what is available at the surface level.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the purpose of an advertisement is generally to promote a product or service, often times a marketing technique is used to compare two products or to state why one product is more effective than another. The same applies to political advertisements. Shouldn’t candidates spend their paid air time promoting their policies and qualifications rather than denouncing their opponents? I find that a candidate looks more professional and better qualified when they state why they are the best candidate and what they will do when elected rather than why their opponent is less qualified. It is not always the candidate that is responsible for the negative campaign ads. It is important to note at the end of a political advertisement and/or at the bottom of the ad on television to see who is paying for the advertisement. In chapter 4, Waterman discussed how candidates have not campaigned for themselves for too long. Waterman said, “for most of U.S. history, presidential candidates did not take an active role in their campaigns. For the most part the candidates relied on surrogates from their parties or other groups that supported them to campaign on their behalf.” (Waterman 73) Political Action Committees and political parties are major contributors to advertisements both negative and positive. It is often out of the candidate’s control what is published about them or how their name is used. Although negative campaign ads often make the candidate whom they are in favor of look like a poor sport, they can occasionally bring up important points to consider when voting. When negative campaign ads expose the truth about a candidate, it is important to learn what this might be about and to see if it will hurt their ability to lead.
During Waterman’s discussion in chapter 4, with the progression of campaigning over time, and how we as a society are constantly being bombarded with the platforms of politicians is concerning to me. Frankly, I’m on the same page as CJ with this one. I think that these elements and changes have put us into a position where we are mainly voting for the lesser of two evils. But that isn’t politics, and government shouldn’t be decided by who has the better defense against criticism, or which candidate can use public relations tactics most effectively. Tying in Christine O’Donnell’s newest campaign video, I didn’t believe a word she said, and was just in stitches trying to figure out how many takes it took her to read off the cue card. She might not be a witch, but this commercial certainly doesn’t prove she should be a Senator either. Brining Waterman back into play, I think that our current issues with campaigns is the past coming back to haunt us. Previously, smear ads were in print, and now they perpetuate our homes on monitors. The verbiage has changed very little, and the effect has only greatened. We’re still moldable creatures as far as these ads are concerned, and until a candidate can move past then and really portray to us honestly who he or she is, like CJ suggests, then the sad truth is that we will continue to be in the limbo land of political haze.
ReplyDeleteI believe CJ brings up a valid point in stating that American voters have rarely, if ever, known the candidate they vote for. In early politics, partisan papers instilled perspectives and views into the minds of their readers, without many people questioning whether the material was right or wrong. Today, when people feel strongly for a certain candidate they will follow news sources that match with their current views, and dismiss information that goes against their beliefs, even if it is true. The majority of Americans vote for a candidate based on the image that they display to the public and not the political issues they present. This does not guarantee the most qualified figure is being elected into office. It allows for elections to become a guessing game, where voters cover their eyes and pick whichever candidate sounds or looks the best.
ReplyDeleteWaterman notes in “The Image is Everything Presidency” that party loyalty has declined, which leads to image becoming more of a deciding factor when electing a political candidate. He states, “The fact that American voters no longer show the loyalty to political parties that they once did means that each candidate must campaign more widely and with greater personal, rather than political financing. As Gary Rose put it: ‘As the long-term influence of party affiliation has become less significant in determining voting behavior, short-term influences such as the images of the candidates and campaign issues become increasingly important with regard to structuring the vote’” (91). As political party association strays from candidates, the issues stray along with it. Image becomes more important, and voters look less at issues and elections turn more into a popularity contest. Candidates feel they reach a much wider audience when their campaign focuses on their image. Appearance is something more people can agree on as opposed to hot-topic issues that create controversy, which can hinder a candidate’s reputation. Therefore, candidates choose to focus a campaign on their image over the issues.
Waterman also states, “By the early part of the twentieth century, norms and public expectations began to change. Especially after the advent of radio, presidential candidates began to participate in the public part of the election process much more directly. In some degree, they also used the medium to influence public opinion during their administrations” (73). This idea is undeniable in today’s politics. CJ’s example of Christine O’Donnell’s campaign ad focuses on how television and the media is used to sway public opinion during elections. This idea has become very prevalent in modern day politics and Americans should not expect it to be going away any time soon.
I agree with CJ that there is a growing hostility between the mid-term candidates, which I also feel can be attested to the constant campaign Waterman talks about in Chapter 4. Waterman also discusses how midterms/primaries now set stages for future Presidential runs with "the vetting begins during the 'invisible primary' period, often a year or more before the first electoral test. In reality, some apparently well-qualified candidates are eliminated for lack of money or supportive media coverage" (Buchanan 1995:237). This also relates to Christine O'Donnell because her campaign has had many absurdities and some are drawing comparisons to Sarah Palin who is eyeing a Presidential Run in 2012. What is interesting about one of her more recent ad's telling the camera that "I am you" has spurred countless youtube video's/images and even a backlash campaign of citizens saying "Christine O'Donnell you are not me". While all of this is exciting to see as a spectator, it is interesting that in a midterm year that should be important, people are not focusing on the issues at all. Candidates are now more often than not choosing to let the American people know them on a personal level, rather than on a political level, which isn't necessarily giving voters the best information to go with when voting.
ReplyDeleteWaterman’s section about the declining role of parties could easily be expanded in light of the 2010 midterm elections. Beyond the anti-incumbent and anti-establishment movements within the electorate, this campaign cycle has seen another big change. In January, the Supreme Court overruled two long standing precedents about the first amendment rights of corporations. It was ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in elections. While the initial reaction to this ruling was that corporate donations (and influence) would outweigh smaller donations from individuals, it may also have an affect on the influence of the parties. The Democratic and Republican parties have organizations such as the DCCC, DSCC, NRCC and NRSC that are responsible for reelection efforts. These organizations help raise money and support for their party’s candidates. This effort includes running television ads supporting party-endorsed candidates or denouncing candidates from the opposition party. As we know, television advertisements have become an important part of shaping a candidate’s image. TV ads from the parties tend to promote the image the candidate is trying to portray. However, now that corporations have more freedoms with campaign contributions, it is only a matter of time before we see political ads funded by corporations become more common.
ReplyDeleteAn example is the WWE and its involvement in the Connecticut senate election. Since Republican candidate Linda McMahon is closely associated with the WWE, the company has been under attack from McMahon’s opposition. Recently, the WWE began running TV ads. Some of the advertisements address fallacies that the opposition party has included about the WWE in their ads. Another ad is about how the WWE has granted more wishes for the Make A Wish Foundation than any other athletic or entertainment company. While the ad serves to note the accomplishments of the company, it is hard to deny that the ad will also help McMahon. The advertisement never mentions her by name, but it does help to combat some of the accusations that have hurt McMahon’s campaign efforts, such as the claim that the WWE lacks family values. While these ads stand out in my mind, its also notable that I cannot recall a single TV ad sponsored by the Republican party. It appears that as the role of the political parties declines, the influence of other factors such as corporations is increasing.
I completely agree with CJ’s post, no substance no progress. With these midterm elections, I can’t help but feel exhausted with the constant ads bashing candidates, and frustrated that I can’t seem to grasp what stance each candidate is taking on actual issues. I definitely feel that the lack of substance in what I am hearing from the candidates is hurting progress, and I’m starting to feel lost. As page 81 of Waterman discusses, campaigns are truly all about image. Candidates and their teams will modify their image in order to appeal to the largest voting group they can. While I understand they need to get voters, I believe the amount that is focused on image and appeal takes away from developing progressive policies and the promotion of those ideas. In fact, as I was watching the Colbert Report one night he showed how Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin were both using the same tactics when asked about their policy stances. They both skirted around the question and said very general statements, nothing about specific policies at all. While O’Donnell made it sound like she could not even remember the issues on the table, Palin sounded rehearsed, which either could mean she also didn’t remember specifics issues or she was trying to avoid alienating specific groups of people who wouldn’t agree. While I understand not alienating people, where does governing take place of you do not take a stand? This concerns me, and I think we need to balance out the focus on projecting a likable image, and actually progressing in government and letting citizens know what’s on the table.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with everything in this post. I honestly find it extremely scary that a candidate with a good public relations person has a better chance of winning than someone with mediocre public relations skills but good policies.
ReplyDeleteWaterman discusses in chapter 4 that presidents originally did not play a large role in the campaigning process. This could actually be a good thing, because while other people were off campaigning for the candidate, the candidate could actually work and get things accomplished. Now, however, future candidates are literally ALWAYS campaigning. Every decision they make is therefore going to be based on how good it makes them look, rather than how beneficial it is for the country.
However, when it comes to first ladies, the effect could be quite the opposite. Burns discusses the changing roles of first ladies in the turn of the millennium. In my opinion, a first lady can sort of count as "extra credit" -- additional points if she's a good one, but it doesn't necessarily take away from the president's image if she chooses to be inactive. Since first ladies are not expected to necessarily work, for they were not the ones to be elected for a position and are also not paid a salary, the actions of the first lady are almost completely voluntary. And again, since the first lady is not assigned a specific job, she does not necessarily have to balance "work" and "image" -- instead, she can focus entirely on her image, and therefore this can, for the most part, only help the president. Additionally, her political involvement behind-the-scenes, particularly when it comes to policies, is generally not scrutinized as much, if at all. Therefore, the first lady's image can actually distract the public so she is able to get real work done if she so chooses.
I completely agree with CJ. Elections have now become the game of who can act as a better campaigner, rather than who is actually better fit for the job. Chapter 4 when Waterman discusses changing campaign tactics resonates a lot with today's current campaign issues. Rather than using the audience to actually find out what their policies should be based on, candidates are using their audience to mold what their campaign is going to look like. A campaign is supposed to be the platform in which a candidate uses various mediums to present their positions on an issue, now all campaigns have become are television time slots in which a candidate tells us what we want to hear, the most vague terms, so should they be elected we can't call them out on making false promises. I think the point that the American people are almost accepting of a candidate who promises but doesn't follow through is of concern. Are we simply going to turn into a society that is aware you are lying during the campaign but votes for you based on how we believe those lies? People will often cite statistics showing that Americans are fairly disconnected from politics, as many of them voted for Bush over Gore because they could see themselves having a beer with him. While this is of course of concern and raises issues about the American political values, I think the option of having people vote on what they feel is someone's personality is better than having them vote on the lies and manipulations that are addresses in various campaigns.
ReplyDelete