2. We have spent a substantial portion of class discussing issues related to messaging (how to accurately target a message, how to make a message "stick", etc). Meanwhile, some students met with Dennis Moore and left feeling unfulfilled with his answers. Some seem to imply that he was simply sticking to his stump speech or "message". So my question is this, does "sticking on message" destroy or damage democratic discourse? Staying on message can certainly help you get elected, but does it shortcut the principles of the democratic process? Or is it not the job of politicians to aid the deliberative process? If it is not their job, whose job is it.....media, the citizens?
3. The conservative critique of the "liberal media" may just be one of the most powerful and damaging political narratives in the last couple decades. With this thought, the conservatives have been able, among other things, to strongly entrench an us vs. them mentality among their base. With Jack Garmond's presentation in mind, how does the media buck that conceptualization? Is it even possible? Garmond seemed to suggest that the media should just continue reporting and eventually the truth will come to light. Is that possible? Can the "truth" come out in such a fragmented world?
Posts
8 comments:
I'll adress those backwards, and, of course, with questions of my own:
3. Why would the media (which isn't as monolithic as our language about it) want to buck the conceptualization of the "liberal media?" Would reporting (assuming we're talking about reporting, and not commenting) influenced by an attempt to buck a conceptualization make for unbiased reporting? I don't think so. I don't remember Germond using the word "truth" at all, and I get the impression you really mean "Truth," not truth. Consult the religious text of your choice on that one. From my news outlets, I want facts, not Truth.
2. On staying on message, this question reminds me of the Obama ad video Ben posted last week, and my response to it concerning the "Gore Curse." Citizens don't want to hear bills read to them. That's why they hire (elect) someone else (politicians) to do that. Does that shortcut the democratic process? No, that IS the democratic process. Politicans know they can't bog down their communication with detail; otherwise they don't get elected, and if they can't get elected, they can't do anything for those voters. At one time (like, maybe, 1799), a citizen may have had the time - and bills may have been simple enough - that politicians and voters could actually discuss detail. But technology, lifestyles, communication, etc. have become exponentially more complicated, and the best the average citizen can do is determine if a particular candidate is promising to vote, or has a record of voting, in a way that supports said citizen's chosen views. It's certainly not the ideal, but it's where we are, and it's what we've got to work with. I don't think we can effectively operate in the 21st century with 18th century expectations of democracy (hence my lack of distaste for microtargeting).
1. The political implications of our shifting conception of community are: Microtargeting.
Is some form of community "better" (politically)or more "real?". "Better" or "real" for whom? I suppose social science research could tell us how "real" and "good" people feel about Facebook, or their bridge club, or their favorite bar, but the political implications always seem to lead back to microtargeting.
Eddie, I am curious about your choice to respond to question 2 with discussion about candidates and voters talking about the details of politics. Do you think that "staying on message" is just avoiding the complex details citizens don't want to get into anyway? I have a little bit different view of this. To me, staying on message to such a degree that politicians aren't even coming close to a real answer to questions they are being asked (as was true with Moore and now often with Palin in her interviews) does interfere with the democratic process. If voters are asking questions, or the media (possibly as the surrogate for the voter who cannot directly ask certain politicians questions), then it's because we want an answer to give us more information so that we can make more informed decisions. To me, "staying on message" means depriving the voters of information they want to make better choices, not sparing busy people from complicated policy they can't understand anyway.
In class we have a tendency to blame the voters for the lack of an ideal democratic process (the idea that "it's what voters want, so it's what they get"), but here is a case of voters wanting to know more, of directly asking for more and not getting it because heaven forbid a politician say something that means anything. I understand the importance of staying on message, but I think there is a balance some politicians need to reach between that and actually telling the voters what they have asked to hear.
The question has been asked of me, "Do you think that 'staying on message' is just avoiding the complex details citizens don't want to get into anyway?"
Yes, I do, though I wouldn't go so far as to trivialize the process with the word "just." That position is supported by our readings of Lakoff and Sosnik et al.
Angela's statement, "To me, staying on message to such a degree that politicians aren't even coming close to a real answer to questions they are being asked" doesn't appear to contradict my stance, but seems to be the same stance, taken to a further degree. When politicians reach that further degree, where they're saying practically nothing, then you and I, Angela, are in agreement -- there is a balance that needs to be established, and that balance is established by elections -- the democratic process. If Moore didn't answer your questions, don't vote for him.
Here's a commentary piece that addresses the very issue we've been discussing since the Lakoff reading.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/and_it_was_written_our_blame.html
It's sort of like Lakoff without the cognitive linguistics.
Eddie, I find your last statement, "If Moore didn't answer your questions, don't vote for him" to be somewhat shocking. So if the democratic candidate doesn't answer your questions, you're just supposed to vote for someone else....even if the other candidate is from another party? And what happens if neither candidate answers the question, which is usually the case? Do we then simply not vote at all? By not answering questions, politicians definitely short-circuit the democratic process. Without a workable base of knowledge, citizens have to rely on their "gut" decisions. Now I know that many in the class say voters don't want the details and the issues. Well, if that is true. why are they asking the questions? Why are reporters asking the questions? I am certainly not trying to take out the values in politics, they certainly have their place. But so do issues and details. So when the electorate asks you a question, it's because they want an answer. So while it may be off your message, do them and the democratic process a favor and answer the question.
Question: "Staying on message can certainly help you get elected, but does it shortcut the principles of the democratic process?"
Answer: "by not answering questions, politicians definitely short-circuit the democratic process."
Geez dude, if you're just going to give away the correct answer, I'll quit spending so much time trying to find it! Let me ask one more: If politicians are "short-circuiting" the democratic process by not answering questions, what are you going to do about it?
First, It seems that our discussion is overly limited to one example, Dennis Moore. Angela also gave the example of Palin sticking to the message, but most of the comments seem to be reflecting a rather limited example. I definitely agree that failure to give any applicable answer in favor of staying on message is problematic. However, I’m not sure if most candidates fit these extreme examples. The experience we had with Moore is very unique; most voters don’t have an opportunity to sit down with a candidate and ask direct questions. I think it might be more useful to think of how candidates usually answer questions and stay on message. What about Obama or McCain in the debates? I think they both stayed on message, but still managed to connect the message to the question. Also, does staying on message necessarily mean you don’t answer questions or give information voters are asking for? I don’t think it does. In the Moore and Palin examples it might, but it seems that most candidates want to drive home a few key points and connect those points to everything they talk about. For example, one of the messages Obama has stuck to is that he is for the middle class. Nearly every question he answers comes back to how it relates to the middle class, whether it be the economy, health care, or the war. I don’t think he is *not* answering questions he is being asked, but he is still staying on message. So, I ask you all, is there really a zero-sum trade off between staying on message and answering questions.
Second, as to the comment about this being a situation in which voters are asking for real information but being deprived that information… Who are these voters? Are they a majority? Are they people who are likely to vote for the candidate regardless of the answer? (As Carl said, is it very likely that I will vote for the other party or just accept that even though Moore didn’t answer my question well, at least he has a more similar world view to mine than his opponent?) As has been discussed in the study groups, staying on message works in many cases. Yes, *we* (as well educated individuals with an above average interest in politics) may want more detailed answers, but is it possible that staying on message works just fine for average voters? It seems that people like us would be looking for information beyond what the candidates told us. For example, we are the types of voters who a) gather political information from a variety of sources, such as newspapers, voting records, etc, and b) are likely to make our voting decisions on a lot of information rather than who a candidate answered 1 specific question. I’m not saying this is an excuse for candidates to ignore questions in favor of staying on message, but we should ask what is at stake for them? Answers that are too specific may be overly complicated for the average voter or may put the candidate in a difficult position later if she/he shifts. Does answering very specifically benefit or disadvantage them with the majority of voters? Remember, we are not like the majority of voters.
Post a Comment