09-02-2004, 06:43 AM
I've been reading this topic and finally decided to post. I apologize that this post will respond to issues from throughout the thread, but there is really no appealing alternative (other option is post crazy multiple posts, don't think anyone would like that).
I am a political scientist by education (about to graduate!!! Yay public education!) and many points brought up by Assur strike home. Yes, the United States' "winner-take-all" system has a "funnelling" effect--it reduces the chances of third-party candidates by concentrating efforts into the two main parties. There are advantages and disadvantages to this, and they have been explored a bit by other posters (so I don't have to :)). I should say, however, that the fact that third parties don't usually win elections doesn't mean they don't have an impact. They are able to draw attention to their issues, and that causes some response from the bipartisan system (be it reactionary or concilatory).
I'd say, the two-party system is probably the biggest concept of American politics a foreign observer should grasp.
Now, about the earlier discussion on the role of the media in political campaigns. First off, it has been noted (nods to Occhi) that no media source will be apolitical. Sadly, this is true; but at least they could strive toward objectivity, even if its not possible. But today's news organizations fail to do even that--they are shamelessly, blatantly advocative. One of my political science courses every semester is a seminar class, in which various speakers come to lecture for 50 minutes on whatever pleases them. Last semester, an old wizened reporter spoke to my class regarding the role of journalism. Apparently, back in the day (1950s-60s) journalists sought to report facts, and separate facts from the commentary or opinion. But when the journalists who had been schooled in the 60s came into the industry (late 60s and onwards to the present), that goal of objectivity flew out the window. Now, issues of whether perfect objectivity can be achieved aside; it should be noted that at least the attempt at objective journalism is superior to completely, intentionally biased reporting. Objective journalism becomes advocacy journalism. If you want and example of the excesses of advocacy journalism, just look at Michael Moore's films.
Take, for example, Farenheight 9/11. In it he implies Bush did not do enough to encourage international support for OIF. And he flashes a 3s clip of GWB taking a golf swing. That is to imply, he's spending his time on a "game" and letting the "reigns of leadership go slack." This implication is so false as to border on the absurd. British PM Tony Blair is actually playing rounds with the president at that very moment, but you wouldn't know it from watching this "documentary." Of course, Michael Moore is such an extreme example of advocacy journalism that even people who share his slant have come out against his film (indeed, liberal journalists have been the most articulate critics of him, as conservatives are so far from him that they merely make "fat-kid" jokes). But the point is made; today's media seeks to display "fact" only in a light which would support its specific viewpoint.
Well, how could objectivity be achieved through advocacy journalism? The answer is, by balancing the sources of news against one another. While you may have a rightist slant from, say FOX news you can flip the channel to CNN and get another version of "fact." Theoretically, between the multiple sources of information you can get a glimpse of "reality" and make your own decision. The speaker, obviously, frowned on such a setup, especially to news sources (like, I'd say, CNN) which attempt to portray their stories as unbiased when it is actually advocacy journalism.
Take a second to think of the implications of this system of information. What is the result of this reporting scheme? You have two schools of thought which are basing their thinking off of "fact;" causing a further separation of their political viewpoints. Whether or not the United States has the capacity to deal with an infinite widening of its political spectrum remains open to debate.
This also touches on another topic early in the thread--both parties in a bipartisan system reaching to the moderate voters. If it is truly a bipartisan system (winner-take-all rules and party power evenly balanced) then the voter whose political views straddle the two parties will control the outcome of the contest (median voter theorem). As a result, each party will try to reach to the middle, to control the "median voter," and win. Well, it turns out that issue advertising doesn't sway the median voter, because the median voters all agree/disagree with different aspects of the parties' platforms. One voter, say, favors abortion rights but also favors private gun ownership. If the democrats come out strongly anti-gun, they just lost one median voter. Of course, coming out strongly in favor of abortion would alienate those median voters who agree with the standing on gun control. (Obviously, this situation applies to both parties equally.)
So what can the political parties do that will make their candidate more appealing to the median voter over the opposing candidate, without alienating anyone who could vote for them? Personal attacks. This fits right in with advocate journalism widening the distance between political camps; you end up with extremists who will ignore any positive attribues a candidate may have, and instead go for cheap shots (such as the whole Purple Heart Band-Aid Fiasco). Or using a poorly-spoken (but, perhaps, fairly intellectual) President mumble himself into "sound-bite unellectabilityâ¢".
The fact is, polls consistently show that voters consistently frown upon negative campaigning. Yet it remains a permanent facet of politics (at least in America) because its utility cannot be doubted. The issue of PACs and 527s becomes salient here; they enable candidates or parties to covertly fund such smear campaigns without the negative repercussions of a voter's psychological resistance to negativity. Indeed, these peripheral testaments against a candidate add credibility to otherwise outrageous accusations; r.e.: Swift Boat Vets. against Kerry saying that he's unfit for Commander in Chief is alot more credible than President Bush/GDP claims, even if done with identical style, media, etc.
Sorry if this has seemed a bit of a ramble, but this came in the middle of some poli sci reading at 0000 hrs. And, unlike Occhi, I have no coffee beans to chew on, I have to dilute my caffiene with hot water. :)
Any observations, I'd be happy to hear them.
P.S. whoever pointed out George Soros gets a brownie point. He was the driving force and finance behing the rise of 527s, and the direct result of his campaign is his ability to influence politics with his vast amounts of soft money. *skin crawls* This makes the difficult trail of soft money almost impossible to track; I have to stop talking before I say something I'll regret *skin crawls*
I am a political scientist by education (about to graduate!!! Yay public education!) and many points brought up by Assur strike home. Yes, the United States' "winner-take-all" system has a "funnelling" effect--it reduces the chances of third-party candidates by concentrating efforts into the two main parties. There are advantages and disadvantages to this, and they have been explored a bit by other posters (so I don't have to :)). I should say, however, that the fact that third parties don't usually win elections doesn't mean they don't have an impact. They are able to draw attention to their issues, and that causes some response from the bipartisan system (be it reactionary or concilatory).
I'd say, the two-party system is probably the biggest concept of American politics a foreign observer should grasp.
Now, about the earlier discussion on the role of the media in political campaigns. First off, it has been noted (nods to Occhi) that no media source will be apolitical. Sadly, this is true; but at least they could strive toward objectivity, even if its not possible. But today's news organizations fail to do even that--they are shamelessly, blatantly advocative. One of my political science courses every semester is a seminar class, in which various speakers come to lecture for 50 minutes on whatever pleases them. Last semester, an old wizened reporter spoke to my class regarding the role of journalism. Apparently, back in the day (1950s-60s) journalists sought to report facts, and separate facts from the commentary or opinion. But when the journalists who had been schooled in the 60s came into the industry (late 60s and onwards to the present), that goal of objectivity flew out the window. Now, issues of whether perfect objectivity can be achieved aside; it should be noted that at least the attempt at objective journalism is superior to completely, intentionally biased reporting. Objective journalism becomes advocacy journalism. If you want and example of the excesses of advocacy journalism, just look at Michael Moore's films.
Take, for example, Farenheight 9/11. In it he implies Bush did not do enough to encourage international support for OIF. And he flashes a 3s clip of GWB taking a golf swing. That is to imply, he's spending his time on a "game" and letting the "reigns of leadership go slack." This implication is so false as to border on the absurd. British PM Tony Blair is actually playing rounds with the president at that very moment, but you wouldn't know it from watching this "documentary." Of course, Michael Moore is such an extreme example of advocacy journalism that even people who share his slant have come out against his film (indeed, liberal journalists have been the most articulate critics of him, as conservatives are so far from him that they merely make "fat-kid" jokes). But the point is made; today's media seeks to display "fact" only in a light which would support its specific viewpoint.
Well, how could objectivity be achieved through advocacy journalism? The answer is, by balancing the sources of news against one another. While you may have a rightist slant from, say FOX news you can flip the channel to CNN and get another version of "fact." Theoretically, between the multiple sources of information you can get a glimpse of "reality" and make your own decision. The speaker, obviously, frowned on such a setup, especially to news sources (like, I'd say, CNN) which attempt to portray their stories as unbiased when it is actually advocacy journalism.
Take a second to think of the implications of this system of information. What is the result of this reporting scheme? You have two schools of thought which are basing their thinking off of "fact;" causing a further separation of their political viewpoints. Whether or not the United States has the capacity to deal with an infinite widening of its political spectrum remains open to debate.
This also touches on another topic early in the thread--both parties in a bipartisan system reaching to the moderate voters. If it is truly a bipartisan system (winner-take-all rules and party power evenly balanced) then the voter whose political views straddle the two parties will control the outcome of the contest (median voter theorem). As a result, each party will try to reach to the middle, to control the "median voter," and win. Well, it turns out that issue advertising doesn't sway the median voter, because the median voters all agree/disagree with different aspects of the parties' platforms. One voter, say, favors abortion rights but also favors private gun ownership. If the democrats come out strongly anti-gun, they just lost one median voter. Of course, coming out strongly in favor of abortion would alienate those median voters who agree with the standing on gun control. (Obviously, this situation applies to both parties equally.)
So what can the political parties do that will make their candidate more appealing to the median voter over the opposing candidate, without alienating anyone who could vote for them? Personal attacks. This fits right in with advocate journalism widening the distance between political camps; you end up with extremists who will ignore any positive attribues a candidate may have, and instead go for cheap shots (such as the whole Purple Heart Band-Aid Fiasco). Or using a poorly-spoken (but, perhaps, fairly intellectual) President mumble himself into "sound-bite unellectabilityâ¢".
The fact is, polls consistently show that voters consistently frown upon negative campaigning. Yet it remains a permanent facet of politics (at least in America) because its utility cannot be doubted. The issue of PACs and 527s becomes salient here; they enable candidates or parties to covertly fund such smear campaigns without the negative repercussions of a voter's psychological resistance to negativity. Indeed, these peripheral testaments against a candidate add credibility to otherwise outrageous accusations; r.e.: Swift Boat Vets. against Kerry saying that he's unfit for Commander in Chief is alot more credible than President Bush/GDP claims, even if done with identical style, media, etc.
Sorry if this has seemed a bit of a ramble, but this came in the middle of some poli sci reading at 0000 hrs. And, unlike Occhi, I have no coffee beans to chew on, I have to dilute my caffiene with hot water. :)
Any observations, I'd be happy to hear them.
P.S. whoever pointed out George Soros gets a brownie point. He was the driving force and finance behing the rise of 527s, and the direct result of his campaign is his ability to influence politics with his vast amounts of soft money. *skin crawls* This makes the difficult trail of soft money almost impossible to track; I have to stop talking before I say something I'll regret *skin crawls*
Out here,
--Ajax
--Ajax