Egocentric Voters

How do we decide who to vote for? Do we vote for who our parents vote for? Do we research each candidate and their individual policy plans and try to make the best informed decision possible? While these are all plausible answers, there is something else that invariably must be taken into account…personal experiences. More often than not, people are going to engage in politics because of something that either personally happened to them, or because they want something to change that will personally make their lives better. Of course people are going to be more likely to go out and vote if they believe that it will better their own lives…so to get people more politically engaged we should ask them to think/talk about their own personal political stories?

This egocentric approach to voting is one that I find very interesting, and one that makes complete sense if you think about it. Under this argument, I would say that people focus on themselves to explain and understand public policy issues, for example I would think that because I changed all the light bulbs in my house to CFL’s, I am going to only vote for someone that is environmentally conscious, and further, I believe that because I have had this experience, everyone else has too. That is one flaw with this egocentric approach to politics…just because it helped you, does not mean that it will help everyone else. Not only do people make policy decisions based on their own experiences, but they also collect data through personal experiences. For example, if I have a friend that lived in New Orleans and her home still has not been re-built, I would assume that most houses in New Orleans have also not been re-built and that the government is doing nothing. I find this point slightly scary. I am not sure how I feel about people using their experiences to gather data and make assumptions about certain situations…but I also do understand that this is human nature.

People are definitely most engaged or passionate about something when it directly affects, or has affected, them…whether that be politics or what have you. While I understand this egocentric approach from a voter’s point of view, I am not sure how comforting it is. Of course you want to use your own opinions to make a decision, but you should also be informed about what is going on in the world around you. Also, I am afraid that this approach to politics makes people even more cynical than they already are about Washington and the people running this country. Everyone has a grievance but never anything positive to say in return. It gets old hearing everyone complain about how the government screwed them over, or how the President is running this country into the ground. While I may agree, I wish that politics could have a brighter outlook. I wish that people were still idealistic enough to believe that they can change things in this country, that there is an optimistic future ahead of us. However, I think that as long as voters are only thinking about themselves this will never happen. We have to start thinking about the bigger picture and our fellow citizens, not just what we want. With all this being said, I do have faith for the future...and I hope everyone else does too.

What is Too Far?

With the ever increasing advancements in technology, national campaigns are evolving into an all access affair, not necessarily a source of basic information. When TV ads were first used in the 1950s, the nation was reveling in this new advancement with a sense of awe because at this point it was simply another medium through which the candidate could reach out to the public. However, with the continued advancements of such mediums as TV and the introduction of the internet, the ethics of political journalism are quickly becoming muddied. This is especially true among the last few weeks of the current campaign, when the question what is too far has been arising more and more.

For example, should Hillary Clinton be open to comments about her husband’s extra marital affairs, or further, should her daughter be forced to deal with these issues simply because the media feels like it is their duty to report these “news events” to the public? Unfortunately, the way our current media environment is set up the only real concern is who makes money and what sells. This desire of the media to be economically successful drives their decisions to find stories that will grab the attention of the public and sell more newspapers, and these sadly tend to be the juicy personal stories, not public policy speeches.

While this gatekeeping function of the media tends to leave people with less hard news and more editorial type reports, it also has greater implications for the voters of America. Too often voters become cynical and annoyed with the whole election process, which in turns, leads to voter apathy. This is extremely obvious right now and the current media situation surrounding the campaign. It is fair to say that political journalists feel that they have run out of newsworthy stories to publish, so they are simply creating some. The stories that have came out lately are absolutely ridiculous, and maybe instead of seeing this “lull” in news stories as an opportunity to create events, reporters could focus on the actual policies of the candidates…but would people really read these articles?

Although we always hear people complaining about the media, they are that way because of the American public. American citizens are hungry for the personal stories, so they determine what sells by feeling this way. If more people would be interested in concrete facts perhaps the media would change, but who knows? Either way, the media has been absurd lately, and the question what is too far needs to be asked a few more times.

Celebrities and Politics

It is obvious through the numerous celebrity magazines and tabloids that are sold daily in this country, that for the most part the average American citizen is concerned with what the select few "famous" people are doing. We love to see that they do normal activities like us, such as go to the grocery store, but we love it even more when they make a complete mess of their lives and we simply get to observe. It is also beginning to be more and more obvious that this fascination with celebrities is permeating the political realm as well. It is becoming national news when a celebrity announces which candidate it is endorsing, and a soundboard for discussions about what this means about the candidate.

For example, when Oprah announced that she would be endorsing Obama, her fan base was irate. The fact that she did not choose to support the female candidate angered many, and brought up the question of whether or not she was supporting Obama simply because he was black? Oprah is simply a person with her own opinion like everyone else, but her opinion seems to influence more people, then say mine would. This leads me to my main point about celebrity endorsements, which is the fact that most people say they are not influenced by what celebrities believe, but they do believe that other people are influenced by them...the third party affect.

In a clip on NPR about celebrity endorsements a scholar was asked about this phenomenon and he noted that while we as individuals do not believe that we are influenced by celebrities, we do believe that everyone else is influenced. I found this notion extremely interesting and completely accurate. Ironically, I thought the exact same thing when posed with the question of whether or not I weighed celebrity opinions in my own decisions. I thought "no, of course not, but I'm sure that many people in America do." When you break this down in reality, that means that a lot of people are, in actuality, influenced by such things as celebrity endorsements.

I think that if nothing else, American citizens can at least relate to a candidate by who or who does not endorse them. For example, almost all of Obama's supporters are young or "hip" celebrities such as Scarlett Johansson and George Clooney. On the other hand, celebrities such as Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger have endorsed McCain, only adding to the list of middle aged white males that support him. As a voter, and one that claims to not be influenced by celebrity endorsements, I can if nothing else, relate to the group that supports Obama because I am young and further, I am not a middle aged male.

So all in all, even if a specific celebrity does not influence a voter one way or another, they can as a group act as guidelines for the general public. Overall, I think that the importance of celebrities in politics should not be overlooked, because it reality they have more impact then we give them credit for.

CNN Article

I just found this article on CNN about race and gender in the upcoming election. It's very interesting and basically says the same thing I talked about in my first blog. Check it out:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/15/kaye.ohioracegender/index.html

Gender and Race in the Democratic Party

When it became apparent that the three Democratic candidates would be Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards it was clear that this election would be one of firsts. There could be the first woman president or the first black president. With the possibility of this monumental change, I was excited to see how these firsts would play out over the next months in each candidate's campaign. I was also interested to see what stance the media would take on these two candidates and how they would present them to the public. It quickly became apparent that the media, and the public, were willing to run with the gender debate but not so quick to jump on the discussion about race and all that entails. I think this illustrates the interesting point that America in general is much more comfortable discussing gender and the supposed character traits that can be assigned by this division. Contrarily, the media becomes hesitant to discuss race and use it as a categorically defining trait. I do not believe that there should be extra focus on Obama just because he is black, but if people are going to judge Hillary because she is a woman, what is the difference?

The difference is that race is such a taboo subject in America. People are so worried about being deemed racist if they use any sort of racial remark; however, no one is ever hesitant to say "oh she's that way because she's a woman." Further, I am not sure if the general population is even aware that this often occurs. It does seem pretty obvious when the coverage of the Democratic is analyzed though. There have been numerous debates over whether or not Clinton is too hard and cold, but there has not been too much debate over whether or not Obama is black enough. While there was some discussion months ago about this notion of Obama's blackness it has quickly faded. Lately there has been more focus on Obama's experience, not his race; however, the focus on Clinton as a woman has not faded.

By looking at the discourse surrounding these two candidates it is interesting to see how comfortable America is discussing gender but not race. It is alright for people to attribute feminine characteristics to a woman, but it is not alright for people to characterize a man just because he is black.