In today’s modern political world it is difficult to say that a nobody could come up from the street corner and become the next president of the United States. That being said, there are some specific reasons as to why this is nearly impossible. 1) Economic influence: With campaign contributions being almost as important as the campaign’s platform (arguably more important actually) the issues with soft money, money that is not given directly to the candidate, but helps him/her out, and hard money, money that is directly given to the candidate, can be seen. 527 groups, are social advocacy groups that use the money they get to campaign for an issue, and the candidate that supports that issue the best. These groups get unlimited funds, and are supported by big business companies. PACs, or political action committees, are organizations established by corporations, labor unions and interest groups who use their contributions to support campaigns. These committees can send up to $5,000 to a single candidate, each. Groups like these are even still overshadowed by soft money, which allows for indirect support, like if FOX News bought Bush a concert benefit that ended up promoting his campaign. Soft money is largely outlawed, and the two aforementioned groups step in to fill the gaps. In such a complex and loophole-filled environment, clear economic privilege (if not required) is a huge advantage for any campaign. 2) Bias: Media Bias is when a news other media power uses its influence to spin news, or support a certain political view. Let’s use the example of FOX News (just a random choice), and lets say (also random of course) that it has a conservative bias. If Barrack Obama gave a speech about health care, one might turn to FOX news and see all the low points and slip-ups in the speech. They may also just remix the footage so that it seems like he is saying things that are threatening or harmful to Americans. Now if McCain gave a speech against health care, it may sound very logical and reasonable when compared to the coverage of Obama. This is media bias, because FOX News is using its influence to harm the democratic agenda, while supporting a conservative one (hypothetically of course). Media bias can also come in the form of clear and outright support or slander of one candidate. If the New York Times Newspaper supports Obama over McCain, then the bias in their stories is clearly in Obama’s favor. This bias is also a huge part of what makes a successful campaign, and your average Joe won’t command much bias. 3) Political Parties: Political Parties are a huge part of political success, because they are established political groups that share a common overall agenda. They are household names like republicans, democrats, libertarians, ect. Groups like these are the most well funded and well supported political movers in the United States. If a person ran as an independent in a race against the major parties, it would be a safe bet that that individual wouldn’t stand a very good chance. Even Jeff Smith realized that he had to run for a party nomination to stand a good chance. My three points all lead to what it really takes to get elected; money, influence, and knowing the right people.
But I did not discuss one very important aspect yet; voter turnout. While voter turnout is largely just the number f people who actually show up to vote, it is also the demographics of who voted. Location, race, religion, and economic status all are important when it comes to understanding a turnout. If more white people voted than minorities, the results would clearly be skewed in that respect. The same can be said of religion or any other determining factor. This leads to the question “is low voter turnout bad for America?” The answer is YES. If there is less of a turnout, than chances are that all demographics are not represented equally, or in large enough numbers. To put it in mathematical terms, the larger the sample size (turnout) the more accurate the results of the test (the election). If there is a larger turnout, then the results of the election will truly reflect the wishes of the American people. In conclusion there is a lot more to getting elected than what a candidate stands for personally. A candidate needs the right connection to be able to pull all the “behind the scenes” strings that result in a successful campaign. It relates to the question of “Can Mr. Smith still get to Washington?”, to which I would have to respond, “that depends, is Mr. Smith a millionaire with friends in the media and in the larger business players, who has the support of a major political party?”. If the answer was no, than I would be inclined to say that it is unlikely. It is still a democracy, but it is a lot harder for a person to get elected without the right connections, that is for certain.
In today’s modern political world it is difficult to say that a nobody could come up from the street corner and become the next president of the United States. That being said, there are some specific reasons as to why this is nearly impossible. 1) Economic influence: With campaign contributions being almost as important as the campaign’s platform (arguably more important actually) the issues with soft money, money that is not given directly to the candidate, but helps him/her out, and hard money, money that is directly given to the candidate, can be seen. 527 groups, are social advocacy groups that use the money they get to campaign for an issue, and the candidate that supports that issue the best. These groups get unlimited funds, and are supported by big business companies. PACs, or political action committees, are organizations established by corporations, labor unions and interest groups who use their contributions to support campaigns. These committees can send up to $5,000 to a single candidate, each. Groups like these are even still overshadowed by soft money, which allows for indirect support, like if FOX News bought Bush a concert benefit that ended up promoting his campaign. Soft money is largely outlawed, and the two aforementioned groups step in to fill the gaps. In such a complex and loophole-filled environment, clear economic privilege (if not required) is a huge advantage for any campaign. 2) Bias: Media Bias is when a news other media power uses its influence to spin news, or support a certain political view. Let’s use the example of FOX News (just a random choice), and lets say (also random of course) that it has a conservative bias. If Barrack Obama gave a speech about health care, one might turn to FOX news and see all the low points and slip-ups in the speech. They may also just remix the footage so that it seems like he is saying things that are threatening or harmful to Americans. Now if McCain gave a speech against health care, it may sound very logical and reasonable when compared to the coverage of Obama. This is media bias, because FOX News is using its influence to harm the democratic agenda, while supporting a conservative one (hypothetically of course). Media bias can also come in the form of clear and outright support or slander of one candidate. If the New York Times Newspaper supports Obama over McCain, then the bias in their stories is clearly in Obama’s favor. This bias is also a huge part of what makes a successful campaign, and your average Joe won’t command much bias. 3) Political Parties: Political Parties are a huge part of political success, because they are established political groups that share a common overall agenda. They are household names like republicans, democrats, libertarians, ect. Groups like these are the most well funded and well supported political movers in the United States. If a person ran as an independent in a race against the major parties, it would be a safe bet that that individual wouldn’t stand a very good chance. Even Jeff Smith realized that he had to run for a party nomination to stand a good chance. My three points all lead to what it really takes to get elected; money, influence, and knowing the right people.
ReplyDeleteBut I did not discuss one very important aspect yet; voter turnout. While voter turnout is largely just the number f people who actually show up to vote, it is also the demographics of who voted. Location, race, religion, and economic status all are important when it comes to understanding a turnout. If more white people voted than minorities, the results would clearly be skewed in that respect. The same can be said of religion or any other determining factor. This leads to the question “is low voter turnout bad for America?” The answer is YES. If there is less of a turnout, than chances are that all demographics are not represented equally, or in large enough numbers. To put it in mathematical terms, the larger the sample size (turnout) the more accurate the results of the test (the election). If there is a larger turnout, then the results of the election will truly reflect the wishes of the American people. In conclusion there is a lot more to getting elected than what a candidate stands for personally. A candidate needs the right connection to be able to pull all the “behind the scenes” strings that result in a successful campaign. It relates to the question of “Can Mr. Smith still get to Washington?”, to which I would have to respond, “that depends, is Mr. Smith a millionaire with friends in the media and in the larger business players, who has the support of a major political party?”. If the answer was no, than I would be inclined to say that it is unlikely. It is still a democracy, but it is a lot harder for a person to get elected without the right connections, that is for certain.
ReplyDeleteWell done Austin.
ReplyDelete75/75