Politics, Parties and Elections, Essay Example

Description of Concrete Experience

I have been an active participant in the election process, working as a volunteer for several congressional and presidential candidates in different states, beginning when I became old enough to vote, at the age of 18.  Since then, I have continued to be somewhat of a “political junkie, “following the news and talk shows and sustaining a great interest in our political process.  In addition, I have a journalism background that I believe gives me an added perspective in the role of the media since I had an aspiration to be part of that institution.

My experience regarding the role of media and its influence on campaigns and elections has been that essentially, in the United States, not only is the media extremely influential in having an impact on political campaigns but that the media virtually selects the winners of each election.  Especially since the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, in which corporations and other large entities are allowed to contribute unlimited sums of money to pay for advertising and other campaign strategies, clearly our elections are not decided solely by any voter’s ability to educate himself or herself but by the frequency, tone, and negativity that is presented by groups who have a stake in influencing the outcomes of the elections.  I have worked on several campaigns, and became aware early on of the tremendous role that the media play in determining elections.

Both the amount of publicity that a candidate receives, as well as the nature of the publicity, was instrumental in determining the outcome of the elections on which I worked.  If a candidate had a great deal of coverage, and if that media attention was positive, then simply put, that person won the election.

Reflection

Media coverage of a candidate is the key factor in determining who wins elections, in my experience.  For example, in the 2000 election, George W Bush received much more favorable coverage from the press than Al Gore did.  I recall reading in a newspaper that because the press was given nearly unlimited access to him on his tour bus as well as being served doughnuts and refreshments, they overlooked a great many of his foibles and did not challenge him much at all.  If they had, it might have become more evident to the voting public that he was significantly ignorant about international affairs and thoroughly unqualified to become president.

In the 2004 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton was presented in an extremely negative way, as a shrew, ruthless in her ambition to become president, and, in my opinion, became a Rorschach test that illustrated the ways people feel about women in power.  She was demonized and because there were already a significant number of people who absolutely detested the Clintons, the media portrayal certainly hurt Mrs. Clinton’s chances of becoming the Democratic nominee for president.

On the other hand, Barack Obama was a media darling nearly from the moment he entered the race.  Because I follow politics very closely, I was extremely familiar with Senator Obama’s record in the Senate.  Very frequently, when there was a vote on an issue that was controversial, the senator voted “Present” rather than taking a strong stand on the issue.  Nevertheless, because he is obviously extremely intelligent and charismatic, and appears to be the kind of man that one could know as a neighbor, friend, or coworker, from early on, I noticed that his press coverage was always positive, to say the least, and was actually glowing in a way that resembled  infatuation by most media outlets.  No surprise then that Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee for the presidency.  I watched many news shows and read countless articles about the election and it appeared that every single media outlet or reporter was completely taken with Obama.

Now that President Obama is in office, I find that very often he does not take strong stances on his positions even when his agenda hangs in the balance.  My familiarity with his record in the Senate is not based on any kind of insider information so that anyone who paid attention to that record would not be surprised that now, as president, he repeats that passivity and only comes out swinging when things have become dangerously close to being lost.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

When covering elections, the media does not play a neutral role but instead, subtly and indirectly selects the winner of the race by the amount of and nature of the coverage of each candidate.  This gives them an enormous amount of power over the process, and represents a significant threat to the democratic process.  If something as trivial as serving doughnuts to the press aboard a bus gains enough favor that it causes the writers, consciously or unconsciously, to cover the candidate in a favorable light, then the entire voting process is compromised.  During these election processes, image is everything.

Testing and Application

During an election campaign, it is essential to expose the candidate to as many media outlets as possible, and in situations in settings that are most likely to present the candidate in a positive light.  For example, if the person who is running for office has an informal, down-home manner, it would be useful to set up interviews in places like diners or even the candidate’s own living room, with his or her family members appearing at some point during the meeting.  It would also be useful for the candidate to speak with the person who will be interviewing him or her prior to the meeting so that a level of comfort can be established.  Finally, it is essential that any incorrect or misleading stories or reports that are released about the candidate be immediately addressed and corrected.  Many candidates have lost ground when they simply allowed misleading or even salacious information to go without response.

Subtopic 2: Describe the history of political parties in the American setting including the development of parties as a standard.

Description of Concrete Experience

Since I have become old enough to vote, I have been a Democrat.  With just a few exceptions, in every election in which I have been active, I have found that the Democratic candidates running for office, local, state and federal, are usually people whose values, as well as the actions that back them, are most similar to mine.  My social work background overlaps with many of the principles of the modern Democratic Party: the quest for social justice, tolerance, and an appropriate role for government being not only for defense, but to provide a social safety net for those in need..  At times, and in the past more often than currently, certain members of the Republican Party also held views compatible with mine.  In those instances, I felt completely comfortable supporting those candidates, and not only by voting for them but by becoming active in their campaigns.

Reflection

Essentially, today’s Democratic party represents an assortment of constituents, including minorities, low to middle class income citizens, unions ,and which views government as an institution that should provide help for its neediest, that is, a safety net for those who fall between the cracks.  The Republican Party is usually seen as a party that supports capitalism, rugged individualism, and limited government and not particularly focused on including minorities in its base, according to my experiences working on campaigns and also speaking with individuals.

Because of its emphasis on negotiation and cooperation, the Democratic Party both of today and of the past often seems to be weak and ineffective when it comes to accomplishing its goals.  During this current presidency, despite the fact that the Democrats are in control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, they have not succeeded in passing much of the legislation that they have set as their most important agenda  items.  Eight typical pattern has been that the president and Congress change the legislation to placate the Republican Party in order to have just a handful of Republicans support the bill when it comes to a final vote, and then there isn’t a single Republican vote anyway; and now what is left is a watered-down version of the original legislation.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

The history of United States has always consisted of a two-party system.  The first political parties were the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, also called the Republicans.  Although the first president of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party, his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was a major founder of the Federalist Party, which believed in a strong, centralized national government.
Originally, the party that was opposed to the Federalists was called. the Democrat-Republican party After the Federalist party faded out, there was a period from 1816-1824 when there was only this one political party in the United States.  This harmonious era was short-lived, however, if the above the move the top the of and that party divided up into the Jacksonian Democrats, which eventually evolved into the modern day Democratic Party, and the Whig party.  The Whigs, however, did not last very long because of the death of some of its leaders as well as its division over the issue of slavery.

Eventually, from the mid to late 19^th century, the anti-slavery Republican Party came into being, adopting many of the policies of the Whigs, including high tariffs, aid to colleges, national banks and railroads.  I find this fascinating since these issues are much more characteristic of the modern-day Democratic Party rather than the Republicans.  In modern times, the American political system has been completely controlled by a two-party system, the Democrats and the Republicans.  Frequently, however, third party candidates such as the Green Party or the Libertarian Party have entered the fray but have generally served only to split the votes of one of the two major parties, propelling one of them into office more easily.  For example, when Ross Perot entered  the presidential race as an Independent against Bill Clinton and George H.  W.  Bush, the Republican vote was split, allowing President Clinton a victory with fewer than 50% of the vote.  To those of us who had worked on the Clinton campaign, things could not have worked out better!

Testing and Application

Would our political system become any more successful or viable if a valid, powerful third party could be established, rather than having their candidates simply split the votes making it easier for a Republican or Democrat to prevail?  Would the current administration be better off if it stopped win over some republicans in order to have a bipartisan result, when it seems clear that the republicans are determined to sabotage the president’s agenda by opposing everything on the democrats’ priorities list?  In my opinion, that would be the best route to go because people tend to admire strength, and the appearance of sticking to one’s convictions, and if the Democrats can simply stick to their principles rather than watering down their legislation in order to win over some Republicans, I believe that they would be supported and admired.

Subtopic 3: Examine the structure and roles of political parties and Political Action Committees (PAC’s)

Description of Concrete Experience

My experiences with political parties have demonstrated to me that they are typically made up of groups of people who share common values and agendas.  When I worked on political campaigns for various congressmen and senatorial candidates in the states in which I have lived, the people I worked with tended to be very familiar types to me, despite their ages, ethnicities, professions, income status, and states of origin as well as countries of origin.  What we all had in common were certain beliefs about how to make life better for individuals as well as society as a whole.

I have been involved in political parties on the local level regarding the election of local politicians as well as local issues, on the state level regarding congressman and senatorial candidates, and Federal elections regarding presidential candidates.  In those capacities, I performed a variety of duties, including calling voters to introduce the candidate and his or her stands on the issues, calling voters on election day to see if they had voted and whether they needed transportation to the polls, and attending functions where the candidate appeared for question and answer sessions with voters.

Reflection

There is no better way to gain an understanding of our political system and the complexities of a political campaign then to volunteer to work on a campaign.  It can be very inspiring to be working on behalf of a candidate whom you truly believe in, and to be working alongside other like-minded people who are also working to make the world a better place.  Losing the election can be very devastating, as it was when I engaged in the first political campaign I worked for at the age of 18, and the candidate lost.  However, the experience was invaluable, the people I met were decent citizens from all walks of life with all of us working towards a common goal.

Working on campaigns exposed me to the enormous pressure put on candidates who are receiving money from PACs; these committees donate money to candidates who they believe reflects their agendas, and so there is undoubtedly some pressure on the elected officials to pursue those agendas.  It remains to be seen whether a politician can receive large donations or PAC money and not be compromised by the experience.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

Political action committees are charged with raising money for candidates who represent their preferences as well as interests, with the goal of influencing public policy.  When I was involved in volunteering for my local congressman, part of my role was calling registered Democrats to solicit donations.  In addition, although my own funds are usually quite limited, I have made contributions to candidates about whose views I feel very strongly.  It appears that contributions made by wealthy donors, corporations, and PACs are contaminating factors in our election process because it gives those contributors undue influence over the candidate, or at least, it gives the appearance of such tactics.  In countries such as the UK where public financing is the rule for elections, while people may not be happy with the results of elections, at least they cannot attribute the results to campaign contributions that have influenced the results.  In addition, candidates spend nearly all their time after getting elected fundraising for the next election, leaving them far less time to attend to the business of their constituents.

Testing and Application

If the United States were to implement the policy of public financing for all elections on local, state, and Federal levels, citizens of this country might have more confidence in the results, and feel that candidates could not be bought.  It would also be useful if the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, could be altered by Congress so that candidates could not receive unlimited funding from large corporations, a practice that undoubtedly gives the appearance of buying election results.

Subtopic 4: Explore the context and financing of campaigns and election

Description of Concrete Experience

My observations about the financing of campaigns have shown me that unfortunately, it is impossible to be elected to almost any office in our country without having a great deal of money to support your efforts.  When I worked on the elections of various candidates, one of my most continuous roles was that of a solicitor of donations to the candidate.  The American Dream that includes the notion that anyone can grow up to be president is, unfortunately, not the case as per my experiences.  Because one can pour vast amounts of money into advertising, mailings and traveling around to give campaign speeches, those who are not in the same financial situation are at a distinct disadvantage.

Reflection

We are currently in another election cycle in which some of the candidates running for office have no prior qualifications that would make them viable candidates for office but they are billionaires or millionaires and have the potential to literally purchase their office.  Until there is public financing for our elections, and the playing field becomes more level, there will continue to be candidates who are elected to their positions solely because they have more money than their opponent.  In an alleged democracy, this runs counter to every principle that our nation was founded on.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

The 2008 election cycle for the presidential race was somewhat of an aberration in that President Obama’s campaign was funded by millions of dollars raised through relatively small donations from everyday people who were inspired by him.  He was not personally a millionaire or billionaire but his campaign was able to raise enough money by appealing to young voters and disenchanted voters, who sent in what they could afford, and which ultimately added up to enough money to elect the president.  In my lifetime, this appears to be a first: the winner of the election was someone who did not use their personal wealth or that of their corporate and wealthy donors to prevail.

Testing and Application

In order to study the actual impact of large contributions by corporations or wealthy individuals on the outcome of an election, a legitimate test would be to have a trial of public financing only for an election, either in a local, state, or federal race, or perhaps voting on a referendum.  This is the way it is done in other countries such a Great Britain, and it is the only way that the candidates can refrain from utilizing money to insure the successful outcome of their candidacy.  In addition, this would eliminate their obligation to the donors, who in our country often consist of special interest groups who have an agenda and therefore exert pressure on the candidate to favor their cause via voting for certain laws and regulations.

Subtopic 5: Analyze the impact of statistical studies such as demographics, consumer economics, and consumer behaviors on campaigns and elections

Description of Concrete Experience

While I have worked on campaigns, most recently the 2008 presidential election, there was an unbelievably solid emphasis on demographics because president Obama had a tremendous majority of the youth vote.  As a result, one of my jobs as a volunteer was reached out to that population by having a visible presence on college campuses, helping plan rallies at colleges and contacting by telephone first-time voters who had recently registered because they had turned 18 years old.  In addition, there were other populations that played a significant role in the campaign, groups that were tending to lean towards candidate Obama such as women, Latinos, and other minorities.  In addition, I was part of a strong effort to reach out to the elderly, who can always be counted on to vote in large numbers but who had not demonstrated a sense of comfort with Obama.  Our role was to call senior citizens and explore whether or not they were in issues of concern to them on which we could clarify Obama’s positions.  In addition, on election day itself, we called hundreds of people to make sure that they had transportation or any help that the needed in order to get to the polls and vote.

Reflection

The election of 2008 demonstrated that demographics play an extremely significant role in campaigns.  Candidates and their staffs pay a great deal of attention to who is likely to vote, who is registered to vote, and which populations of people can be courted to help a candidate’s electoral chances.  Without the tremendous outreach effort made by the Obama campaign to reach out two the groups who were showing a tendency towards Obama, he might not have prevailed.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

Demographics play a hugely important role in political campaigns and elections.  It is the reason that for months leading up to any elections, there are pollsters attempting to sort out which populations are voting for which candidate, what their issues are, that is on what are they basing their vote, and who is most likely to actually show up on election day.  A great deal of time and resources are poured into polling people and then predicting election outcomes and where more efforts need to be focused.

Testing and Application

In the midterm elections that are coming up, it will be crucial to stir up enthusiasm on the part of the voters who supported president Obama two years ago.  Despite the fact that it is not the president who is running on any ballots, if he is to succeed in achieving his agenda he will need to maintain control of Congress.  Therefore, it will be useful to test out whether those same voters will turn out to vote even without the president running for office, so it is in the best interests of the Democratic Party, even at this late date, to utilize some of the same methods that were implemented in 2008: rallies, phone banks, and continuous appearances by the president to rally his base and convince them that turning out this time is final as well.

Subtopic 6: Assess potential influence of national and global events on elections and outcomes

Description of Concrete Experience

My experience in working as a campaign volunteer makes it clear that national and global events have a great impact on the election results in each cycle.  My job at the National Opinion Research Council as well as the Eagleton Institute Of Politics involved contacting people before elections to evaluate their mood and the factors that would influence their vote in upcoming elections.  My findings made it clear that when things are going well as well as when they are not, people tend to express their reactions through their votes.  The question , “do you think the country is on the right or wrong track?  “was often an accurate predictor of who the public would support in any election: if they felt the country was on the wrong track, they would vote against the incumbent, and a reverse was true as well.

Reflection

National as well as international events certainly have an impact on the outcome of elections.  Jimmy Carter lost his reelection campaign due to the terrible economic climate in the country as well as the Iranian hostage crisis.  Certainly, a large factor in the election of president Obama was the state of both the country and the world that was bequeathed by two administrations of George W Bush: the collapse of the financial market in the United States, the involvement in two wars, one of which was started based on lies, the assault on civil liberties undertaken by the administration, the reputation of the United States in the world, which was at its lowest ever, the climate of fear that was exploited by the bush administration when in actuality, they were the people asleep at the switch when the country was attacked on September 11, 2001; the list I can name is endless.

Generalizations, Principles and Theories

The circumstances under which George W Bush became president left a bitter taste in the mouth of many, and severely impacted the credibility of the Supreme Court.  During those eight years, whenever I thought things couldn’t get worse, lo and behold, they did.

When President Bush was reelected in 2004, undoubtedly America’s reputation in the world continued to decline.  This time, it appeared that Americans actually chose to elect the president, although many questions remained about the legitimacy of the election and the voting process in several states.  The bush administration successfully instilled enough fear in the American population that they were apparently able to persuade people that only they could keep the nation safe, not the democrats.  It was very ironic since after all it had been on their watch that the country had been attacked in the first place.

Testing and Application

The ways to determine whether or not national and international events have an impact on elections will continue to be best accomplished by polling prior to the elections.  The questions asked by political pollsters should include specific questions about events in the recent past as well as those that happened a longer time ago.  Because people tend to take out their frustrations on the elected officials who currently hold offices, advanced polling can be an accurate barometer of the country’s mood and therefore can be an excellent predictor of election results.  There have certainly been occasions when polling got it completely wrong but generally, this is a relatively useful tool to help candidates prepare for election outcomes.  Certainly, there are upsets every now and then but usually elections turn out the way people think they will in the days leading up to the election.