This web log represents career blog number 7, and I am looking for a good bit of luck. When I look back through my previous blogs, I see a definite evolution of thought, but I also see room for improvement. In this blog I hope to greatly increase the readability and precision of my argument, as the goal is quite different and of greater importance. In my previous blogs, my assigned goal was to use an artifact to consider a specific aspect of of political communication, and often I was admittedly vague in my interpretation of the word artifact. I was too general in my commentary. The goal here is quite different in nature; I aim to build a proposal for improved political communication at the interpersonal, public, and cultural levels. It is important that this proposal is precise, well crafted, and conscious of the serious challenges in America. With the currently maligned state of political communication, this mission has a value that far exceeds simple analysis of artifacts. Americans want a voice. All around me I see citizens who are unhappy with their political representation. The furor with which they voice their opinion betrays their inability to communicate their needs to someone who could do more than a foreign exchange student from Turkey. Although Americans are not the most astute political observers, you do have skills. In the spirit of democracy I look to the momentum of the people, the momentum of American culture to find a reasonable solution. Americans have an ability to embrace modernity while honoring the successes of the past. Technology is embraced as a valuable political tool. The popularity of TV news, the spending on TV advertisements, the proliferation of web logs, and the use of YouTube for presidential debates all provide evidence of the widespread role of modern media in current political communication. But Americans are also looking to the history of political communication in this country for inspiration. They have embraced one of the oldest forms of political communication, the town hall meeting, as a viable forum in today's political landscape. They have also embraced one of the most contentious sources of political motivation, the church. In my proposal, I seek to join the compatible tools of political communication to increase the ability of each American to share his voice, while minimizing the effect of forces that restrict voices from being heard.
Mobilizing communities to host public forums is the first logical step in improving political communication. Much of the current political power is currently in Washington. National politics enjoy an increasing influence on citizens' lives. The media and multinational corporations have the most to gain from national politics. Money and lobbyists have flooded Washington and changed the political focus in Washington; their voice is loudest and heard most clearly. But this country is a democracy, and it is constituted to protect state and local authority and subsequently, each citizen. A major component of political disillusionment is the inability of any individual to effect change because it seems it must be done on a national level, or requires money and power. (Hollihan) Town hall meetings provide a way to collect local voices and determine how to act on perceived need. Although this system was created long ago, before the population New England became too large to host a functioning meeting for all residents, it can be useful again. (Fiske) Local government meetings provide a forum for the issues of some residents, but require a knowledge of the way meetings proceed and the free time to sit through the extensive meetings. More local forums are needed, forums that are organized around the issues and energies of a community, forums that are casual and friendly as well as contentious, and forums that bring opposing viewpoints together in a respectful way. This can only be accomplished on a local level. The more people who have a stake in an issue, the more likely tensions will rise. But meeting with neighbors forces citizens with opposing viewpoints to respect one another, because they are in a carpool together, they meet on Wednesday nights for neighborhood poker, or they chat each morning when they cross paths walking their dogs. Political communication on this level will be more accessible to common citizens; it is not as intimidating and does not require the same commitment as political participation on a national level. Mobilization can be accomplished using existing forms of communication and organization, such as neighborhood phone lists, PTAs, and local social groups. All journeys begin with one step, and the first step in improving political communication is taken in local communities.
On a national level, technology has made this country much smaller, and technology must be better used to organize and share political sensibilities between members of the national community. In many cases, national political organization has been accomplished by partisan political groups, such as the Democratic and Republican political parties, or special interest groups that span political affiliation. But in either case, it is difficult to find forums that will both have an effect and accept multiple, opposing viewpoints. The national and state governments have not done an adequate job using their resources to stay in tune with public opinion. (Fishkin) It remains difficult for citizens to stay aware of the policy developments and upcoming policy discussion. These agencies need to build an electronic public forum that promotes both dissent and approval, and allows citizens to share their opinion with others, as well. The U.S. government took a major step when Barack Obama signed the Transparency and Open Government Memorandum (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/). Although this affirmed the need for open government, the policy has not yet affected great change in the U.S. Matt Taibbi's recent Rolling Stone article, "Obama's Big Sellout" (http://rawstory.com/2009/12/taibbi-obamas-big-sellout/) is an indication that an acceptable level of transparency is not yet achieved in the U.S. government. The Swiss government's website, for instance, allows citizens to share their opinion and creates opinion polls on ALL major policy issues. Its popular use and more genuine transparency remain a model for the United States.
The proliferation of blogs demands Americans become more informed about political issues. Although blogs are not the most important reason for Americans to become informed on political developments, they bring to light the need for citizens to carefully asses the objectivity and accuracy of political analysis. Blogs allow anyone with an opinion to share it with an air of authority. They provide individuals with questionable intentions to spread their messages. But they also provide normal citizens a way to share their interests, concerns, fears, and hope with the public. Restriction would limit their voice, and therefore education of the citizenry is the best possible solution to limiting the possible danger of misinformation.
Political education would also lead citizens to participate in the political process, and hopefully lead to larger voter turnout. Voters who are informed would be more likely to try to share their opinion. In sharing their opinion, they have the opportunity to feel they have an influence on the political process. The value of their opinion would correlate to an assessed value in their vote, and would hopefully lead to larger ballot box numbers.
All of the problems of political communication can not be addressed with encouragement of MORE communication - political advertising must be reduced as a political communication medium. Although advocates of political advertising argue that it is the only way many Americans receive political information, it limits political participation by providing citizens the lowest common denominator of political communication. (Valentino 338) Because education of the citizenry is a crucial element of improved political communication, the effect of TV ads must be addressed. Political advertising is often filled with partisan messages and therefore does not allow citizens to compare and contrast objective assessment of all sides of the argument. Additionally, the negative nature of these ads has led to the disillusionment of voters, and further leads to low levels of political participation. (Valentino 341)
Finally, increasing levels of political participation must be done without using wedge issues to mobilize political action. Americans must learn from the successes and failures of political history. The founding fathers of this country, like Ataturk, the founding father of my country, crafted the constitution based on an understanding that religion and politics do not mix well. Certain contentious issues can not be solved by an entire nation, and because they can not be solved, they distract politicians and sap energy from our political system. (Lumsden) Some issues are personal, and must be avoided because they lead to partisan politics, the subsequent challenges of political disillusionment, and low voter turnout. Americans can not forget this wisdom: church and state are separate for a reason. My country is also struggling with religious zealots attempting to inject religion back into politics. It is crucial to democracy the separation holds true.
Americans want a voice, and this nation has many resources to provide the forum for that voice. As long as Americans are not distracted by wedge issues like abortion or their expectations limited by the saturation of political advertisements, citizens of this country can be mobilized to become informed politically. Technology allows citizens to create a web log of this journey toward personal, political knowledge. Citizens can share their experiences with the public and receive comments on their blog that further advances their understanding of political issues and public opinion. When the plan for Open Government government in the U.S. is finally realized, those skilled in the use of media will be ready to share their opinion and make sure the government pays attention to the demands of the citizenry. The first step toward creating a national political identity more representative of a well functioning democracy is the mobilization of communities to participate in local political communication. When we bring polite politics back to the dinner table, we will be making our first step toward a new era of political communication.
Fishkin, James. "The Nation in a Room: Turning Public opinion into Policy." Boston Review, March/April, 2006. (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR31.2/fishkin.php)
Fiske, John. Civil Government in the United States: Considered with some Reference to its Origins. 1904
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, 2nd Edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009.
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)
Valentino, Nicholas, et. al., "The Impact of Political Advertising on Knowledge, Internet Information Seeking, and Candidate Preference", Journal of Communication, June, 2004, pgs. 337-354.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Political Debates by Kasim Ercan Ekenler
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/)
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/)
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)
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Does Polling Serve to Support the Democratic Process?
The United States of America is not a republic; it is a democracy. Americans do not make the same assumption that Plato made in his famous political text. Americans believe in the ability of common men and women to inform themselves about critical issues and make rational decisions based on their preferences. The founding fathers believed the value of the country was in the people, and that it is the people's right to decide what laws rule a country. But national or even state-wide voting can not be done for every issue facing a country or state. Americans elect public officials who they trust will consider public opinion on the issue and make an informed choice. In the absence of voting, polling is the best option for gathering public opinion. But many questions arise when considering the ability of public opinion polls to effect or influence policy development and approval. Are legislators actually affected by public opinion polls? Should legislators be influenced by polls, when the accuracy is in question and pollster bias is an issue? Polls seem to be the best way to gather public opinion on crucial issues, but are they functioning properly?
Technology has allowed polling greater claims to accuracy, and definite improvements in response time, but it has also allowed polling to be thrust to the center of the voting process through the use of media. This increased presence has influenced the outcome of the voting process. Following the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., favorable public opinion for invasion of Iraq increased from 52% in February of 2001 to 58% in September of 2002, to 64% in March of 2003, just before the U.S. invaded Iraq. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4) The "bandwagon effect" was experienced not only by the American public, but by the U.S. Congress, as the United States voted to declare war. Some evidence suggests the bandwagon effect was magnified by media-biased polls and coverage of the issues. In this article, I propose that despite the inherent problems of inaccuracy, bias, and voter influence, polling performs a necessary function to support democracy. Polls, when done properly, have the ability to show the media and politicians the "will of the people." It is an additional piece of information legislators muss assess to make an informed decision for their constituents.
Polling is subject to important inaccuracies because it is a social science. Polls attempt to explain public opinion with statistics that represent answers to questions, but much like psychological and sociological studies, researchers must consider their own influence on the subject. Since the time of George Gallup (1930's), the questions pollsters asked and the manner in which the questions are asked has been a source of polling error. "Throughout his career, Gallup paid lip service to the problems of question-wording by occasionally conceding that 'question-wording' posed 'difficult' and 'important' problems for polling." "Not only does the error result from the wording of individual questions, but also from the order in which the questions are asked, and other factors that influence the context within which the respondents interpret particular questions." Even a detail as small as aligning a partucular option with yes or no affects the response; an effect known as "response acquiescence" influences respondents to prefer answering questions positively as opposed to negatively (Hogan 168-9). In The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls, David Moore shares some of his trouble as senior editor at Gallup Organization with the results of the polls. In a February 2003 poll Moore directed pollsters to ask about American support for invasion of Iraq, and then followed it by asking how they would feel if the government did the opposite of the way they felt. The results showed that Americans were less certain of the proper action and more willing to accept the opposite decision from the one they would make. (Moore 8) Americans were more ambivalent to invasion than the numbers that were reported by the media revealed.
In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the public opinion polls did not show consistent support for invasion. Polls were taken regularly, and showed great variance. Although the March 2003 Gallup poll showed 64% support for invasion (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4), "three CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls conducted in the months leading up to the war and immediately after the war began showed that a majority of Americans were not calling for war." (Moore 5) The inconsistency of the results requires researchers to question whether pollsters were priming the respondents to answer affirmatively because they wanted the better story for their network. Additionally, many researchers point to the trend as evidence of the bandwagon effect, when undecided or uninformed voters choose the most popular choice to join the winning side. When the bandwagon effect is strong, those with the minority opinion often keep quiet. Finally, Moore asserts because "this divided state of public opinion was not measured by the other media polls and neither CNN, USA Today, nor Gallup emphasized the public's ambivalence about the war," it "reveals much about the way that media polls manufacture public opinion for their own purposes." (Moore 5) To support Moore's claim of bias, The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html), along with other newspapers (Moore 3-4), published an apology for its inconsistent objectivity in covering the lead-up to the war with Iraq. Polling was used to support media coverage that was very profitable and entertaining. But it did not properly reflect public opinion, and may have convinced legislators to make a decision they felt the public supported overwhelmingly.
Although polling may lead to distorted ideas of public opinion and influence policies with grave consequences, it still remains an integral support mechanism for democracy. The decision to invade Iraq supports the importance of polling not because it was successful in helping to make the proper decision in an important international security issue. This example supports polling because even in its supreme failure, it provides a service to American voters, legislators, and academics. Even with major errors in interpretation, polling allows the people's voice to be heard. The public that was polled in early 2003, as those who will be polled in the future, need to make sure they are heard properly. Those respondents and joined the bandwagon need to reflect on herd mentality and its consequences. Communication is the responsibility of both transmitter and receiver. New ways of polling will be developed that incorporate informed, deliberating respondents, and new polling agencies will rise up that recognize more fully the role of these informed respondents in American politics. (Fishkin 2)
The American public is not always as easy to influence as they were leading up to the Iraq War, but war has a special power over public opinion. In "What do the Polls Show" (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1379/polling-history-influence-policymaking-politics), Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, describes multiple instances in which the public views played a central role in the course of significant national events. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, public opinion restrained the President's from invading Nicauragua. With Vietnam still fresh for many Americans, they protested strongly against an invasion of Nicauragua in 1980. They reinforced these protestation with strong poll numbers against invasion, and Reagan deferred. President H.W. Bush had to be very conscious of similar public opinion against war when he campaigned for invading Iraq in 1990. The public supported protecting oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, but was opposed to invading Iraq. The president used this sentiment to shape his policy initiatives. He acquired the sanctions of the U.N. and Congress to invade Iraq only to protect oil reserves in Kuwait. Finally, despite an incredible amount of negative media attention surrounding President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the public opinion of President Clinton actually improved. His approval rating increased from the mid 60's to 71% at the time of his impeachment and through the end of his term. The public is not a slave to the media or political pressure, though it might be affected.
For a properly functioning democracy, for a country of the people, ruled by the people, the public must be heard. Polls make errors in calculating and communicating public opinion, but this is mediated by our legislative system. We vote for representatives who will contemplate the validity of polls and find ways to make assessments of true public opinion. And the public needs to make its voice heard when policy disagrees with them. Additionally, it legislator's responsibility to make the right decision for the country, despite public opinion. The voters opinion must be heard, but everyone is not an expert. Expert, informed opinions are also a part of the decision-making process. It is important to learn from the failures of polling. Just as the industry itself was born by the failure of the Literary Digest to predict Harry Truman in 1936 and the subsequent improvements made in polling "science". Daniel Yankelovich, the founding father of public opinion research, says that "Americans want a voice, that — increasingly, I think one of the great changes of the past 20 years is this insistence, it's not only a desire, it's an insistence that the public has in having a voice in the decisions that affect their lives." (Moyers) Polls can improve, and voters can improve; the voice of the voter can be heard. We just need to convince voters their freedom depends on being informed.
Works Cited
Fishkin, James. "The Nation in a Room: Turning Public opinion into Policy." Boston Review, March/April, 2006. (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR31.2/fishkin.php)
Kohut, Andrew. "What do the Polls Show." Pew Research Center Publications. 14 October, 2009. (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1379/polling-history-influence-policymaking-politics)
Moore, David. The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls. Beacon Press, 2009.
Moyers, Bill. "Margins of Error: Poll Reading Tips." PBS Radio, January 11, 2008. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/yankelovichnow_ts.html)
Technology has allowed polling greater claims to accuracy, and definite improvements in response time, but it has also allowed polling to be thrust to the center of the voting process through the use of media. This increased presence has influenced the outcome of the voting process. Following the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., favorable public opinion for invasion of Iraq increased from 52% in February of 2001 to 58% in September of 2002, to 64% in March of 2003, just before the U.S. invaded Iraq. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4) The "bandwagon effect" was experienced not only by the American public, but by the U.S. Congress, as the United States voted to declare war. Some evidence suggests the bandwagon effect was magnified by media-biased polls and coverage of the issues. In this article, I propose that despite the inherent problems of inaccuracy, bias, and voter influence, polling performs a necessary function to support democracy. Polls, when done properly, have the ability to show the media and politicians the "will of the people." It is an additional piece of information legislators muss assess to make an informed decision for their constituents.
Polling is subject to important inaccuracies because it is a social science. Polls attempt to explain public opinion with statistics that represent answers to questions, but much like psychological and sociological studies, researchers must consider their own influence on the subject. Since the time of George Gallup (1930's), the questions pollsters asked and the manner in which the questions are asked has been a source of polling error. "Throughout his career, Gallup paid lip service to the problems of question-wording by occasionally conceding that 'question-wording' posed 'difficult' and 'important' problems for polling." "Not only does the error result from the wording of individual questions, but also from the order in which the questions are asked, and other factors that influence the context within which the respondents interpret particular questions." Even a detail as small as aligning a partucular option with yes or no affects the response; an effect known as "response acquiescence" influences respondents to prefer answering questions positively as opposed to negatively (Hogan 168-9). In The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls, David Moore shares some of his trouble as senior editor at Gallup Organization with the results of the polls. In a February 2003 poll Moore directed pollsters to ask about American support for invasion of Iraq, and then followed it by asking how they would feel if the government did the opposite of the way they felt. The results showed that Americans were less certain of the proper action and more willing to accept the opposite decision from the one they would make. (Moore 8) Americans were more ambivalent to invasion than the numbers that were reported by the media revealed.
In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the public opinion polls did not show consistent support for invasion. Polls were taken regularly, and showed great variance. Although the March 2003 Gallup poll showed 64% support for invasion (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4), "three CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls conducted in the months leading up to the war and immediately after the war began showed that a majority of Americans were not calling for war." (Moore 5) The inconsistency of the results requires researchers to question whether pollsters were priming the respondents to answer affirmatively because they wanted the better story for their network. Additionally, many researchers point to the trend as evidence of the bandwagon effect, when undecided or uninformed voters choose the most popular choice to join the winning side. When the bandwagon effect is strong, those with the minority opinion often keep quiet. Finally, Moore asserts because "this divided state of public opinion was not measured by the other media polls and neither CNN, USA Today, nor Gallup emphasized the public's ambivalence about the war," it "reveals much about the way that media polls manufacture public opinion for their own purposes." (Moore 5) To support Moore's claim of bias, The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html), along with other newspapers (Moore 3-4), published an apology for its inconsistent objectivity in covering the lead-up to the war with Iraq. Polling was used to support media coverage that was very profitable and entertaining. But it did not properly reflect public opinion, and may have convinced legislators to make a decision they felt the public supported overwhelmingly.
Although polling may lead to distorted ideas of public opinion and influence policies with grave consequences, it still remains an integral support mechanism for democracy. The decision to invade Iraq supports the importance of polling not because it was successful in helping to make the proper decision in an important international security issue. This example supports polling because even in its supreme failure, it provides a service to American voters, legislators, and academics. Even with major errors in interpretation, polling allows the people's voice to be heard. The public that was polled in early 2003, as those who will be polled in the future, need to make sure they are heard properly. Those respondents and joined the bandwagon need to reflect on herd mentality and its consequences. Communication is the responsibility of both transmitter and receiver. New ways of polling will be developed that incorporate informed, deliberating respondents, and new polling agencies will rise up that recognize more fully the role of these informed respondents in American politics. (Fishkin 2)
The American public is not always as easy to influence as they were leading up to the Iraq War, but war has a special power over public opinion. In "What do the Polls Show" (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1379/polling-history-influence-policymaking-politics), Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, describes multiple instances in which the public views played a central role in the course of significant national events. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, public opinion restrained the President's from invading Nicauragua. With Vietnam still fresh for many Americans, they protested strongly against an invasion of Nicauragua in 1980. They reinforced these protestation with strong poll numbers against invasion, and Reagan deferred. President H.W. Bush had to be very conscious of similar public opinion against war when he campaigned for invading Iraq in 1990. The public supported protecting oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, but was opposed to invading Iraq. The president used this sentiment to shape his policy initiatives. He acquired the sanctions of the U.N. and Congress to invade Iraq only to protect oil reserves in Kuwait. Finally, despite an incredible amount of negative media attention surrounding President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the public opinion of President Clinton actually improved. His approval rating increased from the mid 60's to 71% at the time of his impeachment and through the end of his term. The public is not a slave to the media or political pressure, though it might be affected.
For a properly functioning democracy, for a country of the people, ruled by the people, the public must be heard. Polls make errors in calculating and communicating public opinion, but this is mediated by our legislative system. We vote for representatives who will contemplate the validity of polls and find ways to make assessments of true public opinion. And the public needs to make its voice heard when policy disagrees with them. Additionally, it legislator's responsibility to make the right decision for the country, despite public opinion. The voters opinion must be heard, but everyone is not an expert. Expert, informed opinions are also a part of the decision-making process. It is important to learn from the failures of polling. Just as the industry itself was born by the failure of the Literary Digest to predict Harry Truman in 1936 and the subsequent improvements made in polling "science". Daniel Yankelovich, the founding father of public opinion research, says that "Americans want a voice, that — increasingly, I think one of the great changes of the past 20 years is this insistence, it's not only a desire, it's an insistence that the public has in having a voice in the decisions that affect their lives." (Moyers) Polls can improve, and voters can improve; the voice of the voter can be heard. We just need to convince voters their freedom depends on being informed.
Works Cited
Fishkin, James. "The Nation in a Room: Turning Public opinion into Policy." Boston Review, March/April, 2006. (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR31.2/fishkin.php)
Kohut, Andrew. "What do the Polls Show." Pew Research Center Publications. 14 October, 2009. (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1379/polling-history-influence-policymaking-politics)
Moore, David. The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls. Beacon Press, 2009.
Moyers, Bill. "Margins of Error: Poll Reading Tips." PBS Radio, January 11, 2008. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/yankelovichnow_ts.html)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Political Advertising and Political Communication
The use of political advertising has been transformed from useful to integral in the fifty years that television has become the central channel.
"Advertising has grown from a tool used exclusively by presidential candidates to an essential element of campaign communication at all levels of government. ... As a result there has been a shift from news to advertising over the last two decades. Citizens are now exposed to huge amounts of political ads each election cycle, but exposure to news has declined over the same period." (Valentino 338)
If American voters are receiving more of their political information through political advertising, does that make them more susceptible to persuasion? Or is political advertising a more dynamic way to reach the public with relevant issues? Does it benefit this country to lower standards of political communication to meet the desires of the public? By promoting political advertising as the major form of political communication, our candidates and political parties do not advance American democracy by creating a more informed electorate.
The strongest argument supporting the widespread use of political advertisements centers around informing the least informed members of society. In the meta study "The Impact of Political Advertising on Knowledge, Internet Information Seeking, and Candidate Preference" Nicholas Valentino and his colleagues contemplate a wide array of studies on political communication and its effect on voters. "[D]rawing on extant models of opinion change", Valentino makes an important delineation in the American electorate, separating voters by their level of awareness of potential candidates as well as the political landscape. (Valentino 337) By doing so, the study is able to identify segments of the population that do benefit from the expansion of political advertising. Valentino sites a 1979 Hofstetter and Zukin study that found most political advertising focuses on substantial campaign issues. By presenting substantial issues, political advertisements make uninformed voters aware of the "important" issues. Further, these adds inform the least informed voters about their candidate's stance on such issues. Finally, strong emotions are often evoked from viewers, and provide an energy for the least informed to get more information, or, even better, for them to get involved in the campaign.
In the 1978 study, The unseeing eye: the myth of television power in national elections, Patterson and McClure found that the least informed gained the most information from political television advertising. The researchers concluded that T.V. ads helped to fill the information gap experienced by the American public, especially because the least informed segment of the population was also the most likely to watch television. (Valentino 339) This research supports the Hofstetter and Zukin argument, that the uninformed are gaining an understanding of the existence of specific issues, at the very least. The more informed would have already gained awareness of the issues.
The immediate question that must be asked, though, is whether informing the public should be the responsibility of a decidedly non-objective political source. Is it better to be ignorant, or to be informed by a source attempting to persuade? The least informed are gaining awareness of issues from a source that is also attempting to persuade viewers to choose one side of the issue. But Valentino goes on to site several studies that question the power of political advertising to persuade viewers. He states that many early studies found very little conversion of voters from one candidate to another due to campaign advertising. Later studies supported this, but found that party identification moderated the effect. Voters do change their opinion of candidates because of political advertising, but this does not often lead to a change in their vote. Persuasion does not seem to be the most glaring danger of political ads.
When provided additional information, people may change their viewpoint, but not necessarily their decisions. During the conflict with Iraq, 60% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks of the World Trade Center. Even after the non-partisan 9/11 commission concluded that Saddam Hussein was not involved in Al-Qaeda's attack on the World Trade Center, 50% of Americans still believed that he was involved. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502666.html) People understood that the situation was not as simple as blaming one man or one country, but yet, they decided it was important to stick behind the country, and blame Iraq and Saddam Hussein. They must not have read the report or gotten further details.
Television advertising only allows 30 seconds of information, and therefore can not provide in-depth analysis of complex situations and issues. True, television ads inform the public, but they do not create an "informed" electorate. Informing the masses is an important part of a properly functioning democracy, and has been an unfulfilled promise throughout the history of this country. Part of this problem is related to the fact that many voters are looking for a short-cut to gain political information. People are busy and lazy; becoming informed of the issues and each candidates stance on the issues requires effort, time, and research skills. Valentino states that voters are 'cognitive misers', looking to simplify complex information presented differently by different sources. (Valentino 341) Political advertisements are appealing because they offer embedded messages by implying ideals through the character of the candidate or by appealing to social groups.
The last presidential election used character as the most common tool for embedded messages. John McCain used his history in the military and his record as a war hero to imply personal virtues that would translate to his role as president. He attacked Barack Obama for his association with certain people, namely his former pastor, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers, a former domestic terrorist. The importance of John McCain's war record is debatable, and Barack Obama's former connections to these men are complicated. The answers they provide are therefore inaccessible to most people. Instead, people chose to either disregard these stories as irrelevant or to proclaim John McCain as a hero and connect Barack Obama to men with questionable ideas and actions. It is true that war records and associations with evil men could be important, but it also true that it is impossible to make a fair analysis in 30 seconds. The public is informed by becoming aware that John McCain is a war hero and that Barack Obama attended the Trinity United Church of Chicago. But, overall, the public remained uniformed about the relevancy of such facts.
Television ads encourage only informed voters to seek more information. In the cases provided above, only those with previous skills of information acquisition have the ability to research the claims made by television advertisements. The well informed may look deeper into the war record of John McCain, or specifically research his votes in the senate that would confirm his support of a strong military. They might also investigate the extent of Barack Obama's relationship to Bill Ayers, or Bill Ayers life since his infamous crimes during the Vietnam War. They have the skill set to find the full length versions of Rev. Wright's inflammatory speeches that were used as sound bites in conservative political advertisements.
If the only segment of the population that uses political advertisements to gain informed opinions is the group of voters that were previously informed, political advertisements add minimally to a functioning democracy. They only offer more facts for informed citizens to consider in making their vote. The uninformed citizen is given a better opportunity to gain what he or she feels is "significant" information, but from simply cursory and opinionated information.
I hope this is not the best we can hope for democracy, because if it is, democracy is not working. The public needs to gain more skills to use the information they are given. We need to further encourage and teach ways to check facts, research the issues, and build a structure to accept the plethora of information available. As we saw with the 9/11 report, the problem is not the accessibility of information, but the public's ability to assimilate this information. How can we provide it efficiently, and how can we encourage a more thorough study of it? The internet provides a clear medium and channel for information procurement, but with the popularity of twitter and facebook, it seems like cognitive misers still prevail. So, although political advertisements add to the problem, they are not the problem. It is the public that must step up and do more.
Works Cited
Valentino, Nicholas, et. al., "The Impact of Political Advertising on Knowledge, Internet Information Seeking, and Candidate Preference", Journal of Communication, June, 2004, pgs. 337-354.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The U.S. President
Blog #2 by
Kasim Ercan Ekenler
During the 2008 presidential campaign, "change" was the buzz word. Barack Obama and the democrats used this word to embody their presidential platform as well their goals for domestic policy. John McCain then used the word to first attack Barack Obama, and then to support his own separation from George W. Bush's term, which during the course of 2008 took a heavy beating. Separating change from the common conceptions of the two major political parties, I wonder about change for America. Do we need it? Who should decide and develop the course of "change"? Who is truly empowered to make that change?
I will make an assumption and answer positively that America does need change. With economic turmoil that points to systemic problems, healthcare at the center of heated discussion, a fragile ecosystem, rising global temperatures, and international instability in the Middle East, our current path does not lead to forseeable solutions. These are my assumptions, my reasons for seeking change in this country's path. It is each man's right and responsibility as a citizen to hold such opinions and to verify their validity with study and research. But it is not the citizen's responsibility to affect changes in domestic or international policy. Politicians and legislators are ideally informed and skilled enough to craft such policy. It is the citizen's responsibility to choose politicians that support his or her ideas about change.
In "The Presidency and Political Leadership", Mary Stuckey claims that "presidential candidates, through the vehicles of the political parties, are powerful forces uniting the mass public - powerful voices determining national identity." In the democratic political system, I do not affect change, I vote for someone to affect the change I desire. Politicians are responsible for developing a political course toward affecting change, and properly communicating their platform for change. The problem in modern political times, though, is that issues are becoming less relevant to the political process. The ways in which presidents are uniting the mass public is through their character, their personal stories, and the public's emotional responses to contentious issues. Despite the ability of modern mass media to make political platforms available, and bring issues to the center of the political process, it has acted in the opposite direction, shifting the focus away from issues. If the substance of presidential communication has changed, how can citizens know when they vote what type of "change" they are choosing? And if politicians are moving away from the issues, is this because they are powerless to affect changes on the "issues"?
In "Rhetorical Challenges to the Presidency", Robert Denton Jr. discusses the distinction between the "modern" and "classic" public spheres, as postulated by Jurgen Habermas. He explores how democracy of large masses leads to a loss of discursive coherence between members of society as many less educated citizens become involved in political opinion. Communcating and discussing ideas becomes increasingly frustrating as people become less informed. The mass media outlets are at the forefront of this modern development; the media is responsible for involving far more people in democracy. While this is not inherently problematic, the shift of mass media toward smaller and smaller target audiences has made "narrowcasting," as opposed to broadcasting, the norm. (Denton 446) The response of presidential communication has been to "spend more and more time attempting to influence public opinion concerning their policies" than actually promoting the policies themselves. (Denton 447) It has become more important to spin policies through the media than to adopt changes to policies that informed social discourse has demanded.
In the presidential election of 2008, we saw excessive examples of the candidates attempting to personalize themselves for the American public. Just after becoming the presumptive democratic nominee, Barack Obama aired "biographical" commercials in 18 states emphasizing his patriotism and service to the country. (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/new-obama-bio-a.html) It was focused specifically on building public opinion of his character, not his policies. John McCain matched this approach by airing a 60 second spot emphaisizing his own patriotism and strength as a leader. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/mccain.ad/index.html) The commercial asks about the candidate "what does he think?", but fails to answer the question. The viewers are expected to create their own response based on the images and sound clips provided by the commercials.
By appealing to personal character and avoiding issues, presidential candidates avoid alienating the increasing number of voter coalitions. No longer can candidates count on a small number of voter groups, or coalitions, to gain them the presidency. Mary Stuckey contemplates how universal suffrage - the ability of all woman andminorities to vote - has provided an incredible diversity of cultural, ethnic, economic, and regional "coalitions" of voters. It is difficult to take a hard stand on any issue without alienating large numbers of potential voters. It seems to me that instead of crafting policies more carefully, politicians have chosen to remove policies and issues from their own campaigns, as much as possible. Further, we see the media, as well as the candidates, utilize the diversity of our citizens against one another. Because media outlets have already created micro-markets by "narrowcasting", it is very easy to distribute attack ads to voting coalitions who will be effected by the negative messages. The results of this situation are frightening, as both John McCain and Barack Obama aired more than 75,000 negative ads between June 3 and September 7 of 2008. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/mccain_obama_ne_1.html) These numbers represent the most negative presidential campaigns in history. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081031102057.htm)
The most unfortunate result of a move away from policies, though, is that no one may be empowered to affect change. Denton declared that "it is not likely we will see the development of large-scale policy initiatives" because of the political landscape and the nature of modern presidential political communication. Barack Obama's largest policy initiative as president, the health care reform, is experiencing this same realization. The response to his initiative has been one of attack, marginalization, and emotion. Conservative media outlets attacked Obama, claiming his plan will bankrupt the country, without addressing his concern that our future economic viability depends on an overhaul of ths system. (http://mediamatters.org/research/200903310040) It is not helpful to continue attacking ideas and arguments unless we consider the negatives along with the positives. How do we change a broken system, if the system has created a feedback loop to prevent educated discourse on change by attacking anything new? Do we need to accept change as incremental and slow? Can we afford that type of change, based on our present situation?
Conscientious media outlets do exist, and objective discourse is being attempted, but people are watching Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. Following President Obama's speech to the AMA, the foremost medical body in the U.S., multiple media outlets provided opportunities for doctors, journalists, and professors to answer questions about the feasibility of health care reform. (http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/06/obamas-health-care-push ; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105481744) This is the type of discourse that leads to answers based on facts and logic, not emotion and fear of media attack.
For presidents to be willing to communicate clearly their stand on issues, more people need to engage in discourse that is willing to hear and share both sides of the issue. We need to continue to provide venues that encourage a diversity of ideas. If everyone were disgusted with modern, gut-reaction, one-sided media presentations of political issues, they wouldn't be aired. If our discursive coherence has been lost because of a large, un-informed public, we have two choices. Together we can find NEW ways to educate and inform the public, or we can decrease the size of the "mass public." Can we come together as diverse communities to discuss the issues in ways that we move toward meaningful answers? I hope so, it might be our only chance for change.
References:
Denton, Robert Jr. "Rhetorical Challenges to the Presidency." Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2000. 445-51.
Stuckey, Mary. "Presidential and political Leadership." Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2000. 452-454.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)