In Chapter 4 of "The Image is Everything Presidency," Waterman discusses the issues of the "constant campaign" and how campaign tactics have changed over the years. One major change that occurred with the advent of television was the transition from advertisements based on substantive policy issues to "[simple] statements of unobjectionable platitudes." To many of us this is obvious, but as campaigns evolve with new technologies voters are becoming increasingly apathetic.
A recent article in the New York Times suggests growing volatility between midterm election candidates. This is nothing new, candidates have been fiercely attacking each other for years, but it would have been hard to comprehend 50 years ago just how ridiculous campaign ads would become. For instance, take what is perhaps one of the most absurd campaign ads of all time, republican senate candidate from Delaware Christine O'Donnell's assertion that she is not a witch. Watch it on youtube by clicking here. It is understandable that she would address public concerns about her image, but at no time does she specifically reference a policy or a method of carrying that policy out. Similarly candidates nationwide (from both parties) are deflecting attention away from their own stances by denouncing their opponents; "Sometimes that ferocity takes the form of discrediting their rivals’ backgrounds....Other times it involves linking their opponents’ policy agendas to objects of their constituents’ fear" (Harwood). Either way we are left with little knowledge of the candidate being spoken for and often misleading information about their opponents. So the question is who are we really voting for?
What is even more disconcerting is Waterman's reference to pre-television campaigns. It is clear that the average modern day voter votes on image over substance, but past campaigns were perpetuated by supporters and newspapers with little involvement by the candidates themselves. Have we ever truly known the candidate we vote for? Before television, citizens simply relied on others to tell them who their candidates were and when television finally came about we decided to choose our leaders based on those who made the best aesthetic impression and the least amount of verbal blunders. This is no way to choose a leader. As citizens we must demand greater accountability from our candidates. New methods of social networking and electronic media make it virtually impossible to keep the candidates of the future as vague as in the past, but in a time of such economic hardship can we afford to remain so misdirected and ill-informed? Next time you see a smear-ad or an ad where a candidate speaks about the generic "I will work to..." ask yourself, why, how, and what does that tell me about you?
No comments:
Post a Comment