Mass media has always played a large role in political campaigns. It makes sense in a democratic country to use all the tools available to share with the public the political stance of candidates on the important issues. It also makes sense to use those tools to share with the candidates the stance of the public, as well as their questions and concerns about the candidates. Until the last two presidential elections, the media used for this purpose has been what we now commonly describe as the traditional media: newspapers, magazines, and television. Newspapers and magazines have been used since the first U.S. presidential election, and television began playing a role as it became popular in America in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In the 2004 election, the internet first played a role in the presidential elections. It was successfully used to organize constituents, plan campaign events, and raise campaign donations, most notably by Democratic hopeful Howard Dean.
But in the most recent presidential election of 2008, Americans witnessed the internet “shifting into a central position in … terms of disseminating ideas.” (MacAskill) YouTube, a video sharing site, did not exist during the 2004 election, but was thrust to the center of the 2008 campaign. The video “I’ve Got a Crush … On Obama” was viewed over 2.5 million times within the first month it appeared on the site, and other political videos were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. (MacAskill) But the internet and YouTube were later used create a “virtual town-hall” when CNN and YouTube struck a deal to host both Democratic and Republican primary debates. (Hollihan 227) Americans at home were allowed to upload video questions to the site that could be asked of the candidates. (http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate ; http://www.youtube.com/democraticdebate) This venture was lauded as the “most democratic presidential debate ever” (O’Brien) as it offered every American the opportunity to personally (virtually) ask the presidential candidates a question. It also allowed Americans the opportunity to choose which questions were asked, because the questions selected were based on the number of times each question was viewed on Youtube. Despite these new opportunities for “pure democracy”, final selection of the questions was made by CNN, and this created controversy. Republicans claimed CNN demonstrated bias by allowing democratic supporters to ask questions of the Republican candidates. But despite the inherent possibility for bias that accompanies selecting whose voice is heard, the YouTube debates provide the most inclusive forum for presidential debates that modern technology allows.
The town hall meeting is an American institution that throughout history has allowed citizens a forum to discuss issues and question elected leaders. Governance in early New England was accomplished by discussion between the elders of the community and the inhabitants in the largest building in town. This worked well if the population was small enough, but as the town grew, town hall meetings about contentious issues became difficult. “[T]hose only who obtained places near the moderator could even hear the discussion.” (Fiske 100) The populations of many New England towns soon made town hall meetings insufficient and inefficient. In 1822 the town hall meeting was dropped in Boston in favor a local government that more closely resembles modern day municipal governments: the system was vested in a mayor, eight alderman, and 48 common council members, 4 from each of the city’s twelve wards. (Fiske 101) Our modern political system grew out of the failure of town hall meetings. Today the failure of the political system has brought us back to the town hall meeting.
As the American public has grown concerned their delegates lost touch with their concerns, we have seen a resurgence of the town hall meeting. In the 2008 presidential election, John McCain used town hall meetings to get a feel for local sentiment about national issues and to promote the idea that he was in touch with the concerns of American citizens. John McCain microphones and speakers at the meeting, and allows cameras to televise the meetings, ensuring that those not “placed near the moderator” could hear the discussion. Although this solved the problem of allowing everyone to hear the discussion, it did not provide everyone a voice at the town hall meeting. Questions posed at John McCain’s town hall meetings were screened by his political advisers, and were additionally limited by the local audience and their ability to be allowed to attend the meeting. American issues, though, are international and diverse. They require consideration of many opinions, more than can be obtained in selected American cities. The town hall meeting needed to be modernized beyond microphones and television.
Built around a desire to share information, the internet provides the perfect forum for sharing opinions of a diverse citizenry, organizing those opinions, and allowing further evaluation of those opinions by the same citizenry. The internet is the only building big enough to hold a national town hall meeting. YouTube serves as an unbiased city elder, collecting and counting the opinions of citizens and sharing them with the rest of the community. By accepting video questions and posting them online, the YouTube presidential debate forum allows every citizen to speak and to be heard. Additionally, by counting the number of views for each question, YouTube tracks “what people are talking about.” Heavily viewed questions have drawn citizens to listen and tell their friends to listen, and therefore represent the interest of the people. It is true that some people may not have internet access or skills to participate by using the internet or uploading video. But a certain base set of skills has always been required for political participation, from literacy to knowledge of the political system. Internet use has become a piece of the modern political skill set. Armed with such skills, American citizens have a new ability to participate in the political process in the mold of the oldest political forum, the town hall meeting.
It is a dangerous possibility, though, that the virtual town hall meeting has the appearance of objectivity and fair opportunity, but the reality of bias and corruption. Following the Republican Primary YouTube debate, questions were raised by Republican candidates about the selection of questions by CNN. Some candidates felt that CNN showed bias by allowing Democratic supporters to ask questions of the Republican candidates. “I think it compromises the integrity of what it was supposed to be and that is a very objective people's kind of debate,” Mike Huckabee said following the debate. (Garrett) Although Huckabee felt the process was corrupted by democratic supporters, CNN felt that the substance of the question was more important the political party of the questioner:
The issues raised during last night's debate were legitimate and relevant no matter who was asking the questions. The vested interests who are challenging the credibility of the questioners are trying to distract voters from the substantive issues they care most about. Americans are tired of that discredited low-road approach, and throughout this election campaign CNN will stay focused on what the candidates are saying about the pressing issues facing this country at a critical time in our history. (Garrett)
Although the YouTube forum allows the freedom of submission and freedom of viewership, it does not allow freedom of selection, nor does it guarantee unbiased selection. But the forum does provide more transparency, it allows more participation, and it in doing so has the ability capacity to satisfy Americans who feel their voice has not been heard. This is supported by CNN’s additional response to Republican critics: “Judging by the fact that last night's event was the most-watched primary debate ever, it seems that the audience responded to our focus on plain-spoken questions about important issues.” (Garrett) The town hall was created to allow people a venue to speak their mind, and have the opportunity to be heard. Although the YouTube forum suffers from the dangers of bias and preferential selection, it is the best opportunity to be heard American citizens have been given since the early 1800’s.
Bias and corruption are an inherent part of the political process, but Americans will continue to find ways to reduce their power. When New Englanders felt these forces were having undue influence, they would meet at the town hall to find a way to mitigate these forces and find a fair resolution. Although the YouTube debates might not be the “most democratic debates ever”, they are possibly the most democratic debates since the time town populations outgrew the size of the town hall. The YouTube forum provides a way to guarantee first amendment rights in the political context. Implicit in the right to freedom of speech is the right to be heard. Even if the candidates do not hear our question, Americans now have a formal way to allow millions of Americans to hear each citizen’s concerns. Only through popular, technologically advanced media like YouTube can presidential debates return to the town hall.
Works Cited
Fiske, John. Civil Government in the United States: Considered with some Reference to its Origins. 1904
Garrett, Major. “CNN Defends Its Use of Democratic Supporters in Republican YouTube Debate”, FoxNews.com, November 30, 2007. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314002,00.html)
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, 2nd Edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009.
MacAskill, Ewan. “Debate bring Youtube to centre of 2008 presidential campaign.” The Guradian.com, 23 July, 2007. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jul/23/broadcasting.digitalmedia)
O’Brien, Luke. “YouTube and CNN discuss ‘Most Democratic’ Presidential Debate Ever”. Wired.com, 14 June, 2007. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/youtube_and_cnn/)
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
God and Political Communication by Kasim Ercan Ekenler
Religion and spirituality have shared a role in the history of the United States. As the currency proclaims, Americans trust in god. The founding fathers of this country, though many were men of faith, understood the dangers of mixing religion and politics. They made the United States political system secular and specifically separated church and state. But they also understood the importance of religion in the lives of Americans, and provided protection for citizens to practice any faith they chose to practice. Religion and spirituality has continued to be important in the lives of Americans, though its influence and popularity has fluctuated. Most recently, cultural conservatives and the religious right joined forces with former President George W. Bush and saw their influence in America, especially American politics, greatly increase. This increased influence, especially with the most powerful figure in American politics, the President of the United States, brings into question how to forge a compromise between a secular political system and a political system meant to represent citizens who are deeply religious. During his presidency, George W. Bush walked a fine line with political rhetoric attempting to speak to citizens whose politics were guided by religious values while avoiding alienating citizens who were fearful of mixing secular politics with religious morals. Although he was very successful in reaching this compromise, the former president, as well as the media, often paid too much lip service to "wedge issues" such as abortion. These types of issues must have been a major reason the founding fathers chose to separate church and state. Wedge issues are too contentious and distracting to allow for productive advancement of the country. Religion is important to many people because it provide a moral framework for creating a personal value system. It is strong, consistent value systems that allow people to elect officials who will create legislation that protects and honors citizen's values. While I appreciate the values of both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice supporters, it seems the disagreement distracts us from the main point of the establishment of a new health care system. Life and choice are important values not just for unborn children and pregnant women, but to every citizen. Yet all three major factions of the religious right fail to consider the Health Care Reform Bill beyond an amendment to prohibit the coverage for abortion procedures. This offends me, and stinks of hypocrisy. If the sanctity of EVERY human life is at stake, why is the religious right so concerned with such a small percentage of lives at stake in this bill? Not all religious groups have missed the point; the United Church of Christ, as well as Sojourners have recognized that health care reform is directly supported by their value system. Religion is a personal tool best used to identify and communicate a value system, not a political tool used to divide people and build a constituency; I hope to see religion used to promote values upon which people agree.
George W. Bush, despite the criticism he received for misusing religion for political gains, understood that religion was a personal tool used to make decisions based on personal values. Religion had allowed the former president to alter his lifestyle from one in which he made choices he did not value to one that was guided by his values, one that was purpose driven. (Please ignore the Rick Warren reference, if distracting. But here's the full distraction, if you are interested: http://www.purposedrivenlife.com/en-US/Home/home.htm) Although I believe religion to be a deeply personal journey, we can learn things from other people's journey. I enjoy hearing other people's stories, especially if I my story is similar and we share experiences. I have no patience for someone trying to convince me that the path they have chosen is the past I must or even should choose. George W. Bush did an excellent job finding this compromise in his political rhetoric. Steve Waldman, editor of Beliefnet, explians that Bush "very good at using religious language that evokes certain messages to certain constituencies without freaking out everyone else. If you look at Bush's religious rhetoric, a lot of it has to do with a very broad general description of God as a supporting figure, as a figure of strength, as a figure who's watching over history. None of that is something that's going to scare people. And yet this certain language that turns on light bulbs over the heads of certain voters." (Waldman, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/waldman.html) Because Bush understood the importance of this compromise, he chose not to address the contentious issue of abortion. Although this was a disappointment to his constituency, George W. Bush only supported a ban on partial abortion, which is more evenly supported by American citizens. (Waldman) Although Bush personally opposes abortion, he understood that it has become a political issue. Supporting it would have distracted him from passing legislation that more closely represented the value systems of most American citizens.
The abortion issue has become a moral distraction for the religious right, distracting the right from a health care reform that has the opportunity to more widely protect "the sanctity of human life." Jim Wallis, editor of the evangelical magazine, Sojourners, believes that the religious right has defined moral issues almost exclusively in terms the wedge issues: "they narrow everything down to one or two issues: abortion and gay marriage." (Lumsden) He continues to explain this mistake:
I am an evangelical Christian, and I can’t ignore thousands of verses in the Bible on [another] subject, which is poverty. I say at every stop, “Fighting poverty’s a moral value, too.” There’s a whole generation of young Christians who care about the environment. That’s their big issue. Protecting God’s creation, they would say, is a moral value, too. And, for a growing number of Christians, the ethics of war—how and when we go to war, whether we tell the truth about going to war—is a religious and moral issue as well. (Lumsden)
Health care reform fits directly into this argument: the religious right has missed the boat on health care reform and only concern themselves with the health of unborn children. Visiting the web pages of the major religious right ministries reveals this grave mistake. Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network has only one article about health care reform, "Abortion Funding: HC Reform's Last Hurdle" (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/November/Abortion-Funding-Could-Make-or-Break-HC-Reform-/), and shows no links to other information about health care reform. Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family site posts a "Top Story" about health care reform, but again the story is about the Stupak-Pitts abortion amendment, and not a single article describes the other aspects of health care reform. (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000011423.cfm) "Family Research Council Praises Passage of Pro-life Amendment to Health Care Bill" is the article linked to the "Action Alert" on the Family Research Council home page. (http://www.frc.org/pressrelease/family-research-council-praises-passage-of-pro-life-amendment-to-health-care-bill) Health care reform has the opportunity to provide health care to millions of uninsured and under-insured human beings, and these powerful groups have chosen not to communicate any of this information to its constituency. Although their value system should support it, it does not support it through political communication.
Some religious groups do acknowledge the agreement between the spirit of health care reform and a value system based on Christian morals. Jim Wallis puts his money where his mouth is; his magazine is vigorously supporting health care reform and its ability to combat poverty in America. The magazine's website, sojourner.com, boasts an extensive Health Reform Campaign in the "Faith in Action" section of his webpage. This website provides extensive links to morality-based articles on health reform as well as objective, information based articles on health care reform, and links that allow citizens to actively participate in the debate on health care reform. The value system promoted by sojourner as well as the mission statement are clearly supported by their stance on health care reform. In addition, they actively communicate this stance to their constituency. On the front page of The United Church of Christ's website is a link to the article "UCC leader lauds House passage of health care reform legislation." The UCC not only supports health care reform, but it has passed a resolution within the church to support a legislative bill such as H.R. 676. The highly contested "public option" is the part of health care reform that most completely addresses the issue of uninsured and under-insured Americans. They have made their public communication on this issue not only loud and clear, but formal and definite.
For whatever political reason, the religious right has chosen not to articulate in public their support for a bill that would provide all Americans basic health care. They have chosen to ignore a value system that claims to fight for the sanctity of all human life. And in the face of this grave oversight, they use the same argument to talk ONLY about the issue of abortion. Other religious groups have not made the same mistake, and have public embraced legislation that supports a value system developed through spiritual, moral beliefs. These values are held by most Americans, and whether accomplished by religious leaders or political leaders, communicating these values allows for a secular government that represents a religious citizenry. Additionally, it provides religious leaders and spiritual citizens to ask questions about the values that are communicated by our religious organizations, especially when a political issue is at stake. It seems that the risk of the overlap of church and state might also be a concern for churches, especially if religious values are being neglected because of politics.
Works Cited
Lumsden, Michael. "God's Politics: An Interview with Jim Wallis." Motherjones.com, March 10, 2005. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/03/gods-politics-interview-jim-wallis)
Waldman, Steve. "Frontline, The Jesus Factor, Interviews." Pbs.org, December 5, 2003. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/waldman.html)
George W. Bush, despite the criticism he received for misusing religion for political gains, understood that religion was a personal tool used to make decisions based on personal values. Religion had allowed the former president to alter his lifestyle from one in which he made choices he did not value to one that was guided by his values, one that was purpose driven. (Please ignore the Rick Warren reference, if distracting. But here's the full distraction, if you are interested: http://www.purposedrivenlife.com/en-US/Home/home.htm) Although I believe religion to be a deeply personal journey, we can learn things from other people's journey. I enjoy hearing other people's stories, especially if I my story is similar and we share experiences. I have no patience for someone trying to convince me that the path they have chosen is the past I must or even should choose. George W. Bush did an excellent job finding this compromise in his political rhetoric. Steve Waldman, editor of Beliefnet, explians that Bush "very good at using religious language that evokes certain messages to certain constituencies without freaking out everyone else. If you look at Bush's religious rhetoric, a lot of it has to do with a very broad general description of God as a supporting figure, as a figure of strength, as a figure who's watching over history. None of that is something that's going to scare people. And yet this certain language that turns on light bulbs over the heads of certain voters." (Waldman, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/waldman.html) Because Bush understood the importance of this compromise, he chose not to address the contentious issue of abortion. Although this was a disappointment to his constituency, George W. Bush only supported a ban on partial abortion, which is more evenly supported by American citizens. (Waldman) Although Bush personally opposes abortion, he understood that it has become a political issue. Supporting it would have distracted him from passing legislation that more closely represented the value systems of most American citizens.
The abortion issue has become a moral distraction for the religious right, distracting the right from a health care reform that has the opportunity to more widely protect "the sanctity of human life." Jim Wallis, editor of the evangelical magazine, Sojourners, believes that the religious right has defined moral issues almost exclusively in terms the wedge issues: "they narrow everything down to one or two issues: abortion and gay marriage." (Lumsden) He continues to explain this mistake:
I am an evangelical Christian, and I can’t ignore thousands of verses in the Bible on [another] subject, which is poverty. I say at every stop, “Fighting poverty’s a moral value, too.” There’s a whole generation of young Christians who care about the environment. That’s their big issue. Protecting God’s creation, they would say, is a moral value, too. And, for a growing number of Christians, the ethics of war—how and when we go to war, whether we tell the truth about going to war—is a religious and moral issue as well. (Lumsden)
Health care reform fits directly into this argument: the religious right has missed the boat on health care reform and only concern themselves with the health of unborn children. Visiting the web pages of the major religious right ministries reveals this grave mistake. Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network has only one article about health care reform, "Abortion Funding: HC Reform's Last Hurdle" (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/November/Abortion-Funding-Could-Make-or-Break-HC-Reform-/), and shows no links to other information about health care reform. Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family site posts a "Top Story" about health care reform, but again the story is about the Stupak-Pitts abortion amendment, and not a single article describes the other aspects of health care reform. (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000011423.cfm) "Family Research Council Praises Passage of Pro-life Amendment to Health Care Bill" is the article linked to the "Action Alert" on the Family Research Council home page. (http://www.frc.org/pressrelease/family-research-council-praises-passage-of-pro-life-amendment-to-health-care-bill) Health care reform has the opportunity to provide health care to millions of uninsured and under-insured human beings, and these powerful groups have chosen not to communicate any of this information to its constituency. Although their value system should support it, it does not support it through political communication.
Some religious groups do acknowledge the agreement between the spirit of health care reform and a value system based on Christian morals. Jim Wallis puts his money where his mouth is; his magazine is vigorously supporting health care reform and its ability to combat poverty in America. The magazine's website, sojourner.com, boasts an extensive Health Reform Campaign in the "Faith in Action" section of his webpage. This website provides extensive links to morality-based articles on health reform as well as objective, information based articles on health care reform, and links that allow citizens to actively participate in the debate on health care reform. The value system promoted by sojourner as well as the mission statement are clearly supported by their stance on health care reform. In addition, they actively communicate this stance to their constituency. On the front page of The United Church of Christ's website is a link to the article "UCC leader lauds House passage of health care reform legislation." The UCC not only supports health care reform, but it has passed a resolution within the church to support a legislative bill such as H.R. 676. The highly contested "public option" is the part of health care reform that most completely addresses the issue of uninsured and under-insured Americans. They have made their public communication on this issue not only loud and clear, but formal and definite.
For whatever political reason, the religious right has chosen not to articulate in public their support for a bill that would provide all Americans basic health care. They have chosen to ignore a value system that claims to fight for the sanctity of all human life. And in the face of this grave oversight, they use the same argument to talk ONLY about the issue of abortion. Other religious groups have not made the same mistake, and have public embraced legislation that supports a value system developed through spiritual, moral beliefs. These values are held by most Americans, and whether accomplished by religious leaders or political leaders, communicating these values allows for a secular government that represents a religious citizenry. Additionally, it provides religious leaders and spiritual citizens to ask questions about the values that are communicated by our religious organizations, especially when a political issue is at stake. It seems that the risk of the overlap of church and state might also be a concern for churches, especially if religious values are being neglected because of politics.
Works Cited
Lumsden, Michael. "God's Politics: An Interview with Jim Wallis." Motherjones.com, March 10, 2005. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/03/gods-politics-interview-jim-wallis)
Waldman, Steve. "Frontline, The Jesus Factor, Interviews." Pbs.org, December 5, 2003. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/waldman.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)