Your Vote Is Your Voice

Throughout our Government and Economics course this year, we spent a great deal of time focusing on elections, specifically the essential question, “Do elections express the hopes and concerns of average Americans?” With the 2012 elections coming upon us quickly, voter participation is a huge part of average American citizens expressing their needs hopes and wants for the future of this country. However, in recent elections, there has been a lack of voter participation (the Illinois Primary is just one example) causing the voices of the citizens to vanish.

Americans want to express their opinions, but there are many distractions and difficulties when it comes to voting, causing a lack of voter participation. One example is attitudinal change, which is increased distrust and alienation. Negative attitudes towards politics are increasing year after year causing a modest turnout. Americans are becoming less and less confident about their own role in changing the government so they simply choose not to vote. What Americans do not realize is if they do not vote, their voice has no chance of being heard.

Another example that causes less and less voter participation is the Lifestyle Change Theory. This theory talks about how our lives are just too busy and we are too distracted to really jump into politics. This argument, all in all, suggests that we are too distracted by the media, new technologies and our jobs to be involved in politics. If American’s let their lives get the best of them and they choose not to vote, they will have no impact on the election.

Lastly, the role of the news media today seems to have a significant impact on the lack of voter participation. Today, anything that grabs the public attention seems to be fair game to the media, but people feel the media is attacking politicians for coverage and popularity, whereas in the past, the politician’s personal life was kept out of the news. When people only hear only the negatives about the candidates, it causes a lack of confidence in the candidate and causes the people to not want to vote. 

In this November’s presidential election, votes will be crucial.” Campaign participation in all its forms, from voting to watching debates, is likely to continue its downward slide” according to Thomas E. Patterson, the Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. American’s everywhere deserve for their voices to be heard, which is something that has had an impact on me throughout my time in Government class. Voter Participation will be essential in the 2012 presidential elections – people need to vote for their voices to be heard.

Campaigning: A Race to See Who Is…. Not the Worst?

As we wrap up the year in our government class, we aim to apply the things we have learned to real life situations. One topic we studied as campaigning and campaign strategies. One could look at Reagan, Bush, JFK, or any of our former presidents for that matter, and he or she could see the use of campaign ads or anything to push his campaign over another’s. The presidential elections are getting nearer and nearer which means that more and more campaign ads and other pushes to get a vote are being used. Recently, President Obama released a short clip

slamming Mitt Romney in regard to job losses in the past and Romney’s “plan” for the future. As I talked about (as well as many others) in my last blog post, media has a tremendous effect on the presidential race today because of how many people see it. This ad portrays a dark and solemn tone to represent a not-so-bright future under Romney. Because of what we have studied in our class time, I now have a more solid viewpoint on what this ad really means and what it actually does in regard to President Obama’s campaign. Honestly, if I was to be watching TV in the past and this clip came on, I probably would have done one of two things: either change the channel or just zone out completely for a little bit until it was over. Now, I can actually watch it, know what they’re talking about, and form my own opinion about it, which in this case, I see that President Obama is right when criticizing Romney.

Because of the influence that politicians have on voters, they can say so many things about themselves or other candidates to get people to vote for them.

Moreover, back to the campaign ad and its relevance, this isn’t all that the President, or Mitt Romney even, have done to criticize one another. President Obama has ads like the one about steel workers above, as well as videos like “When Mitt Romney Came To Town”, while at the same time, Crossroads Generation, an organization that supports Mitt Romney, recently released a video criticizing President Obama and the issue of student debt. Things are getting heated. Debate is starting. Every four years, this point in time is reached where it turns into a free-for-all and the candidates throw jabs and sometimes uppercuts at each other. This is that point in time. With all the possible ways to get under candidates’ skin and blast them, it turns into a criticism-fest. As if the campaign ads weren’t enough, the Obama administration made a website solely to poke at Romney in relation to his responsibility for job losses. All of these forms of campaigning are used to cause mass flow of information to voters so that they have everything at their disposure. All of this can be linked to Richard Neustadt’s claim of presidential persuasion. A president must persuade those in his cabinet, but that is once he is in office. A presidential candidate and his or her administration must not only dig up information on other candidates that would shoot him or her down, but they must also be able to persuade their audience in order to get their votes.

Presidential elections have and always will be about who can make the other look the worst. It will always be about who can say “Look at me. I’m not going to give you everything, but I’m sure as heck better than that guy”, and then have everyone that hears him believe it. This is the epitome of campaigning and its effect on the voters. It’s giving voters the opportunity to form an opinion, just like I have learned to be able to do by taking this class.

Tweeting His Way to the Top

According to our Founding Fathers, the presidency is primarily a check on the powers of the other two branches of government and the military. The first clause of article two of the Constitution declares “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” They assigned the role of the president to be the head of the executive branch, not the sole leader of our country. So, if the Constitution does not give presidents as much power as they seem to have, then how have they become such central figures in American government?

In class, we have recently discussed Richard Neustadt’s idea of presidential informal power. In the White House, Neustadt argues “[The President’s] strength or weakness, then, turns on his personal capacity to influence the conduct of the men who make up government.” Essentially, modern presidents derive their power from their ability to influence others, particularly politicians, rather than directly from the Constitution. In today’s modern world of technology, the Internet has become an essential part in a president’s informal power. For example, President Obama uses social media sites as an outlet to impose his beliefs among people around the nation, specifically Twitter.

Twitter is growing in numbers everyday; since its debut in 2006, over 175 million users have joined in the tweeting, re-tweeting, following and favoriting (http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/just-how-many-active-twitter-users-are-there-124121). Our government class has been using Twitter along with millions of people in order to discuss and learn about political processes and recent happenings in the 2012 election. We can even view the tweets of prominent politicians, including President Obama along with a team of tweeters that help manage his account. Through his Twitter account, President Obama is able to practice his informal strength by promoting his campaign, success and ideas in a variety of tweets. To follow the President on Twitter, click the following link: http://twitter.com/#!/BARACKOBAMA.

Obama’s followers can find any information about the President and his campaign simply by viewing his tweets. Looking at the most recent tweet from the four above, Obama tweets often to let his followers know how they can get involved in his campaign, for example linking them to sign up sites for his campaign rallies. By gathering more supporters via Twitter, Obama’s capacity to influence, or his informal power, grows even larger.

In the second most recent tweet, Obama posted about the newfound success of Chrysler, a business that found its way during his time as President. When any American business improves, regardless of its importance, it indicates economic growth. Obama tweeting about the minor growth of success in America on his hand may positively impact people’s impression of President Obama. Without expressly writing that the American economy is improving on his watch, he still allows people to think that perhaps he is helping its growth with small steps.

Often times, politicians use Twitter to criticize policies and proposals of other politicians, and this can certainly get heated in the midst of a Presidential Election. Becuase Mitt Romney will most likely pull ahead as the final GOP candidate, he is Obama’s direct target in attack campaign videos, ads and tweets. Twitter is an ideal form of attack, simply because he can link out to videos or external links that support his reasoning as to why Romney is the wrong choice, and millions will see it. However, Obama must keep in mind that negative publicity will also come his way from other candidates. Attacks can be very harsh, but it’s all part of politics.

Finally, Obama is able to directly interact with American citizens and gather their opinions on new bills and policies through Twitter. He can summarize it in a brief tweet and watch the replies roll in, collecting immediate feedback in order to give Americans precisely what they want.

Many of Obama’s critics say that he is far too wrapped up in media involvement, and that it has resulted in an unfair balance of coverage between him and other Republican candidates in the 2012 election. However, why would the President not use this deemed “love affair” to his advantage? If he is able to ramp up his power through the Internet, or even the television and radio, why wouldn’t he seize the opportunity to do so? Modern times call for a change in political approach; it is an undeniable fact that the media now plays a large role in politics. If the media wants to follow President Obama around while he has them wrapped around his finger, he should continue to utilize his power over media in order to display his informal powers.

The ability to use sites like Twitter in order to hype up presidential informal powers of influence and persuasion has made a tremendous impact politics, and should certainly call for an interesting 2012 Presidential Election. President Obama will continue to use Twitter as an avenue to connect to citizens, gather support and possibly influence people to see his side of things. I personally believe that Twitter is an excellent way to share and spread ideas considering the Internet is one of, if not the primary form of communication today. We must share ideas to keep the general community informed of important news, interesting articles and controversial moments in the world, and it’s easy to share things on Twitter. After all, very powerful things can be stated in a mere 140 characters or less.

Style Is Key: The Makings of Campaign Commercials

In Government class this trimester we examined the broad topic of elections, a topic I found very interesting due to its relevance with the upcoming election. Perhaps the most intriguing topic in this unit for me was the study of campaign commercials. Before this assignment, I made note of the campaign commercials, however, never considered their effectiveness, and furthermore, how they accomplished the message they strive to communicate to the American public. The campaign commercials captivated my attention primarily because they are not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of elections. When I think of elections, what comes to mind is televised debates and speeches made by candidates. The study of campaign commercials showed the diverse realms and tactics used in elections to promote a candidate.

In today’s society, campaign commercials prove to be one of the most heavily weighted forms of promoting a candidate. Media has become tremendously more prevalent in society, and a powerful 30-second ad can quickly communicate ideals and beliefs a president holds without having to tune in to watch an hour-long debate. Political expert Arthur Sanders sums up the importance of campaign commercials over all other sources of media by stating, “Ideally, you’d rather have (voters) paying attention to debates. But they don’t. That’s why people use TV ads. They are the most powerful way still to reach voters who are only paying limited attention to a campaign. … People who see TV ads usually end up knowing more about candidates than people who don’t.”

In an increasingly fast pace world, a 30-60 second commercial tends to be significantly more appealing than a two hour debate.

Before this assignment, the time and careful planning it takes to create these commercials never crossed my mind. After completing the assignment and critically analyzing these commercials, I came to a general conclusion on how these commercials are created. I believe that in order to make an effective campaign commercial, one must first consider what the message or topic is that is to be communicated to the audience. Next, they must consider whom they are targeting. In other words, who is the audience? This is important because the style to create the commercial is based off of age group and general audience, as different tactics appeal to different crowds. Once the audience is established, they must consider how the idea will be communicated. What will the cinematic style be, and what method will they focus on the most? Persuasion, factual information, or emotional appeal?

The ultimate goal of campaign commercials is to draw support for a candidate, and that is accomplished in a variety of ways. Personally, the videos that I found most impactful were those that had a unique stylistic approach. As it can be concluded, the commercials with a person simply speaking about what they will do in the future or what they have done is quite boring and causes many to lose interest. I believe that the cinematic style is the most important aspect of campaign commercials. While others may argue that persuasion is key, I believe that in order to effectively persuade the audience, the commercial must be interesting and captivating as the ads are commonly less than a minute. They must quickly grab your attention, therefore relying first on the stylistic aspect. Music, voice-overs, images, and layouts are all examples of cinematic factors. Often images are much more impactful, powerful and memorable than a person simply speaking about an issue. Cinematic style is also key in properly addressing and engaging audience. For example, a more creative and modern style is used to target the younger generation, as they will respond and relate better to it. I think the persuasion, factual, and emotional results experienced are built off of the foundational cinematic style. In other words, an emotion may be evoked based on the degree of successfulness of utilizing stylistic approaches.

For example, Obama’s “Yes We Can” campaign commercial effectively puts to use a unique cinematic style. Taking one of Obama’s speeches and having it spoken and sung by others, while at the same time reinforcing Obama’s campaign slogan, “yes we can”, was a tool that was very successful. This was not only very interesting, it was memorable and successfully summed up his platform through the use of music, as well as the video image of Obama’s speeches. The two factors of his factual speech and interesting style together made the commercial particularly powerful. With an interesting and unique style, you will want to watch the video again, and possibly even share it with friends, and that is exactly what the candidates want: exposure.

Visit the linked website to further study campaign commercials and the large range of styles and tactics used to communicate ideas.

The Political Process in an Age of Technology

Over the course of this last trimester in our government class, we’ve ventured through so many branches of our government and the processes within it that it was difficult to even start to think about what I wanted to write my reflection on.  After a while, I began to think about not only what I found interesting, but what actually was important to me in regard to become a better citizen of the United States. I spun the wheel and I finally landed on technology’s impact on elections and the political process today. As technological advancements are made each and every day, political leaders gain more and more access to the public via the internet, the media, and more. Examples of these are: campaign commercials that can be accessed from all over the world, candidates gaining donations through the internet, and the ability to connect more to the public through the ability to really hear what they have to say. All of these things are both good and bad; however, I believe the increase in access to the public via technology is, in the long run, a good thing. The fact that political leaders are able to get themselves out there much easier allows for people to participate more and be more engaged. As the United States has become more reliant on technology (which is not a good thing for it promotes laziness), it has become all that people do. This is why I chose this topic to reflect on; simply because I, myself, spend so much time utilizing technologies that are available to me.

The campaign commercials’ availability on the internet is a good thing because it allows those who rely on technology to receive political news to see them. It began with only those who had access to a radio could hear the candidates, then it went to television which progressively increased until now, when “47 percent of non-Hispanic whites use the Internet, e-mail or text messaging to get political news or exchange their views, compared with 43 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 50 percent of English-speaking Hispanics” (1). This statistic shows just how many people solely rely on their access to technology. This allows a more technical fight for presidency because it allows more people to see commercials that are both for and against the candidate of their choice, giving them a broader perspective.

http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/2008-presidential-predictions/

                Candidates now have the ability to take in donations and other sources of money to spend through the internet. This is a fantastic thing because it helps prevent the “risk of money power dominating the candidate” (2). For so long, candidates that have more money are simply always going to have a better chance to win. This is because, from the get-go, they are able to campaign more, influence more people through said campaigning, and more. Now, with this availability of technology to aid in this financial issue, candidates can be more evenly matched. There will always be a candidate that is funded more heavily than others; however, with technology, hopeful candidates can start their campaigning over the web before the really start it in the political process. This allows for more equality for all.

 http://www.prx.org/pieces/25096-clinton-addresses-money-in-politics

                Lastly, the ability to have access to the true voices is crucial when talking about the benefits of technology in today’s political process. As Prof. Daniel Kreiss from Stanford University said, “These technologies are bringing about a radical change in the political process as ordinary citizens are increasingly participating and making their voices heard”(3).  As more people turn to technology to get their news and see the latest updates about their candidates, it allows more people to communicate in some form with them. In the 2008 election, people made videos and posted them to YouTube to ask questions to candidates of the presidential election during various debates. This alone speaks at length at the vitality of technology in regard to communication between the people and the candidates.

http://socialmediasaturday.eventbrite.com/

                This is just a glimpse at what I learned in my government class. As I conclude this post, I think about the fact that before this was brought to my attention, I didn’t even think that this was a factor in the political process. I have been raised in such a technologically advanced age that I wouldn’t have ever known the difference. Before, I can’t imagine what campaigning was really like and the challenges they must have faced. Voter participation wasn’t a big issue because of the universal patriotism during that time, but during the years after that and before the age of technology began, the hoops that candidates must have had to leap through to promote voter participation must’ve been crazy. However, now, “people need little more than an Internet connection to become a more active part of the political process” (1). This is what makes technology so important. At the end of the day, promotion of voter participation and having the peoples’ voices heard are the things that make technology such a benefit in today’s political process.

(1) : http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-26/politics/technology.election_1_mindy-finn-political-process-online-media?_s=PM:POLITICS

(2): http://www.sbs-resource.org/technology-in-the-political-process-a-grey-area-with-no-clarity-yet.htm

(3): http://www.stanford.edu/~dkreiss/Comm111S.html

Media’s Influence in Politics

Throughout this course and specifically the third trimester I have encountered several interesting topics that surround certain areas and aspects of our government. The main topic of my interest was how campaign commercials, or just the media in general, could have such a large influence on elections. It’s an incredible thought that a short 30 second video can have so much impact on the viewers and could sway their votes on a massive scale. The offensive, defensive, or just neutral ads share the common desire to gain support for the candidate.

Not only are commercials used, but perhaps small articles in newspapers or magazines, flyers, brochures, posters, and billboards, can sway the way a person may think of a candidate. The media’s influence in politics is something that has greatly interested me. I believe that in a way it’s a good idea to get the word out about a candidate and where they stand on issues through advertisements and other forms of media, but I believe that this has also caused candidates to stray from the issues and only concentrate on gaining support or taking it from someone else.

Campaign ads focus on television viewers and also people surfing the internet watching videos. Campaigns buy time on channels, choosing the channels where they know they can obtain many supporters, and also on the web, such as Youtube.com where at times you are forced to sit through an ad to view the video you are really interested in. Those few seconds spent on that channel or waiting for your video to stream can have an impact on a large percentage of the population.

The class day that was spent analyzing some past presidential campaign ads show the requirements for a “good” ad and a “bad” one that won’t cause much change of people’s opinions. People are quick to jump to conclusions when they view and ad, and it is evident how the ad wants to change a person at times. An ad that just simple gives information of candidate and portrays them as a bad choice may change a viewer’s opinion about the candidate even though no textual evidence is provided, over exaggerations are said, or the ad simply tells you that you should not vote for a candidate. If people really payed attention to ads they would be able to not only determine whether or not the information presented to them is accurate and indeed factual, but could come to the conclusion that the one being attacked may be in fact a better candidate. In my opinion when a certain candidate is attacked, i feel sympathy for them and feel that perhaps, if another candidate has to attack them, that the victim of the ad may in fact be a better choice and the attacker seems desperate.

Having learned about campaign commercials and how they want to sway the opinions of viewers has given me a different way to approach the media when it comes to politics. I have become cautious on my approach on the ads I may see while watching television, flipping through magazines or streaming videos.

In the following ad the candidate simply states what he has done and what he could do. He does not attack the other candidates and presents the facts with sources.

Accomplishment

If most ads were like the one above, it would be nicer and the media’s influence would not be as great. Reporting the facts and promoting the candidate still sways opinion.

The next ad is one that provides not evidence and is made to be an attack ad.

Wolverine

This shows how media may try to change opinion and may easily succeed in it.

Media influences us directly or subconsciously, but it never stops sway people’s opinions one way or another. An “ideal” ad of any kind for a political issue should be neutral. It should show both negative and positive characteristics of candidates, show now direct preference for one or another. Promotion of a candidate should not be filtered by the “most” positive aspects of their career but should include a few negatives to balance things out. the restrictions or changes that “should” be done to the media would limit freedom of speech so they would not be able to be pass.