Archive
For the Right Reason?
Just Recently, President Obama stated that he supports same- sex marriage. This statement has caused a huge debate and interest in the people of America, as well as students like us studying the elections. Many questions have come up about this action that President Obama chose to make. Could this move be political move trying to gain more votes because he feels threatened by Mitt Romney? Or could it be that he actually feels that same-sex marriage is ok? I believe that President Obama should make this decision based off of his true belief, not because he is trying to gain support from more people. Having said that, it is a very smart move if Obama did this to gain more support, even if he doesn’t truly stand by it. However, we will never truly know the answers to these questions.
Same-sex marriage has always been a “state issue,” but as this issue became bigger and bigger it developed into a “national issue.” It is playing a crucial role in the elections of officials in our government. By choosing to support same-sex marriage, Obama is directly going against his republican contenders. This is a very bold move that could either help him or hurt him. There are currently thirty states that prohibit same-sex marriage.(1) This statistic alone shows that Obama’s decision to support same-sex marriage was very risky. Also recent polls show that “opposition to same-sex marriage rises to 51 percent, compared with 42 percent support.” However, when looking at this statistic one must keep in mind that the majority of people that are against same-sex marriage are republican and it is their belief that same-sex marriage is wrong. Also, the majority of Republicans will not be voting for President Obama regardless because of the loyalty to their party.
This brings me to my main question that I have already mentioned and briefly talked about. Did President Obama choose to support same-sex marriage to gain support? In my opinion he did side with allowing same-sex marriage in order to gain more votes and the support of the homosexual people. The timing of this decision was also very odd to me as well. He chose to become public with this idea during the middle of the election process, and when it became clear whom he would be running against. A poll that was conducted by the New York Times states, “they thought that Mr. Obama had made it “mostly for political reasons,” while 24 percent said it was “mostly because he thinks it is right.”” (2) This just proves that most of America believes that President Obama did this as an act to win the election.
When candidates run for election they use many different tactics and ways to gain support of voters. Through our studies in government this year we have learned that candidates normally target a specific type of audience, such a young people or older people and many others. When Obama admitted to supporting same-sex marriage he gained the support of the LGBT. We will never know weather this action was due to gaining more votes or because he feels that same-sex is right, but we will soon find out if this move helped Obama win or lose the 2012 Presidential election.
(1)http://www.domesticpartnershipflorida.com/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/
(2)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/politics/poll-sees-obama-gay-marriage-support-motivated-by-politics.html
We are the 99%
I decided to write my second reflection on the topic of Occupy Wall Street because in government class we discussed how powerful and corrupt the government can become, and Occupy Wall Street aims to correct this corruption. Occupy Wall Street is a widely renowned subject, but somehow sustains its mysterious edge. Not many people know what they are protesting and why it is such a huge deal. The protestors call themselves “a leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions” (http://occupywallst.org/). They are using the “revolutionary Arab Spring tactic” which refers to when protestors gathered in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt. The protestors on Wall Street are mimicking their strikes, marches, and rallies that brought tremendous awareness to their cause.
In doing so, they have received many violent responses from police attempting to keep the protestors under control. Protestors have said things like “the police presence is nonstop” and “there have been some very scary encounters with them” (http://www.thenation.com/article/163719/occupy-wall-street-faq). One of these incidents included “the spectacle of police beating and brutalizing unarmed civilians for the crime of sitting on the pavement and demanding a fairer world” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/15/occupy-wall-street-police-violence).
Protestors agree that the police bringing these violent attacks only make “the police or government look…weak and cowardly” because they “have tended only to increase public support for civil disobedience”. Sheneberger says that these attacks are the point of the violent resistance because “it exposes the corruption of the power that’s resisting you”. This is an extremely powerful quote because when reading the initial story of police brutality, I only saw how horrible it all was instead of realizing what the protestors were trying to show us which was that the police need to do this in order to gain control of the protestors. The fact that it is such a dire need for the police to get control of civilians that are simply “sitting on the pavement” exposes their need to suppress the knowledge that the protestors are expecting the government themselves to reveal. The protestors are making an attempt at reverse psychology by getting the police to reveal themselves as the ones that are hiding something. The police revealed this when desperately pepper-spraying and beating civilians with batons. Alain Sherter puts it into a sentence, “For those who work around Wall Street, mobs are no doubt an inconvenience. But such annoyances are peanuts compared with the economic and political problems this movement has thrust into view. And that you can’t knock out with a billy club” (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57326876/in-day-of-protests-occupy-wall-street-faces-police-violence/).
New Amendment on Same-Sex Marriage: Constitutional or Not?
Dated all the way back to the 1700s, same-sex marriage has been a major controversy in society. In recent news, President Barack Obama made a public statement saying that he supported gay marriage. Is this his true belief? This quote from CNN states, “I had hesitated on gay marriage, in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient, I was sensitive to the fact that — for a lot of people — that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs.” Based on his previous opinions, what made him become such a strong advocate for equal marriage rights? It could have been the actions of North Carolina and their extreme efforts to permanently ban gay marriage. They created an amendment that prohibits same-sex marriage even though there was already a state law restricting it.
On the contrary, the beliefs of Mitt Romney lead him to strongly support the new amendment that North Carolina has created. Stated in the Huffington Post, Romney believes that marriage should be between only one man and one woman. He relates this back to his religious beliefs by saying, “There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action.” Obama doesn’t necessarily disagree with this statement but when he thinks of including his religious ideals in his decisions as President he takes into account the “values like loving our neighbors, being our brother’s and sister’s keeper and dignity for all,” stated by Obama’s religious outreach spokesman Reverend Derrick Harkins.
I believe that same-sex couples should have the choice of marriage because as stated in amendment one of the United States Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” When North Carolina passed this amendment, it clearly demotes the equality of the men and women who have a partner of the same sex. In this changing society, gays should have the right to be able to live the same lives as any other American.
President Obama Supports Gay Marriage: Why He Did It and What It Means
Recently, it has made headline news that President Barack Obama has announced his support for the marriage of a LGBT couple. I know that a lot of my fellow classmates have already spoken about this but hopefully I will be able to keep this interesting and shed some light on the subject. In our government studies this year, several topics have caught my eye but one has been the use of campaign commercials and the relationship of the political parties. Hopefully I can examine the reasoning behind his decision to support gay marriage.
Vice President Joe Biden also came out and supported gay marriage three days earlier than . When I heard President Barack Obama’s comments, I had a few thoughts. I thought that maybe Barack Obama felt pressured into also supporting gay marriage just because his vice president supported as well. I also thought that maybe Vice President Biden stole President Obama’s thunder by supporting gay marriage just days before the President. It turns out that both the former and the latter might be true. According to The New York Times, Vice President apologized to President Obama for, “hastening him into an endorsement of same-sex marriage, several people briefed on the exchange said Thursday, even as the White House sought to capitalize in the campaign on Mr. Obama’s long-awaited expression of support” (1). The campaign of President Obama really wanted to be progressive and support gay marriage but Biden called a press conference first and his views were much different than Obama’s views. Even though President Obama’s support has been highly analyzed, Biden made the headlines first and some people have questions about President Obama’s motives. I don’t doubt that President Obama supports gay marriage, but I think he was forced into saying it by his fellow party members.
President Obama is now the first President of the United States to support gay marriage, but it does not necessary mean anything for the legalization in America of gay marriage. Sean Eldridge, senior adviser at Freedom to Marry, told Yahoo News, “Today is more about moral leadership and less about policy. I don’t think his statement will immediately translate into policy since marriage still is for the most part a state issue” (2). Eldridge brings up some good points. If marriage is mostly a state issue, it would take a while to make the 6 states that allow it to become 50. The President has shown support of LGBT in the past; this statement didn’t come out of nowhere. He ended the ban of openly gay members to be in the military. He also, “supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and he ordered the Justice Department last year to abandon the law’s defense” (2). Now that President Obama supports gay marriage, he is the best hope for the LGBT community to earn the right to get married. Although it could be just a political ploy, it seems like President Obama is trying his best to allow gay marriage in America even though he may not be ready to cope with the thought of it yet.
Obama said that he recently changed his mind when he spoke with openly LGBT members of the military. He has a track record with being supportive of gay rights and equality for all, but it is still unclear whether this is a political ploy or a truthful acknowledgment. Well, it’s both. The timing is good for his campaign and Joe Biden also came out and supported it, both signs that it could be a political act. His track record, however, proves that he does in fact support gay rights. Honestly, it is up to the reader to decide what his ulterior motives are and what he truly believes.
2. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obamas-gay-marriage-views-policyabout-moral-leadership-advocate/story?id=16314661#.T7JenZ9YthM
Campaigning: A Race to See Who Is…. Not the Worst?
As we wrap up the year in our government class, we aim to apply the things we have learned to real life situations. One topic we studied as campaigning and campaign strategies. One could look at Reagan, Bush, JFK, or any of our former presidents for that matter, and he or she could see the use of campaign ads or anything to push his campaign over another’s. The presidential elections are getting nearer and nearer which means that more and more campaign ads and other pushes to get a vote are being used. Recently, President Obama released a short clip slamming Mitt Romney in regard to job losses in the past and Romney’s “plan” for the future. As I talked about (as well as many others) in my last blog post, media has a tremendous effect on the presidential race today because of how many people see it. This ad portrays a dark and solemn tone to represent a not-so-bright future under Romney. Because of what we have studied in our class time, I now have a more solid viewpoint on what this ad really means and what it actually does in regard to President Obama’s campaign. Honestly, if I was to be watching TV in the past and this clip came on, I probably would have done one of two things: either change the channel or just zone out completely for a little bit until it was over. Now, I can actually watch it, know what they’re talking about, and form my own opinion about it, which in this case, I see that President Obama is right when criticizing Romney.
Because of the influence that politicians have on voters, they can say so many things about themselves or other candidates to get people to vote for them.
Moreover, back to the campaign ad and its relevance, this isn’t all that the President, or Mitt Romney even, have done to criticize one another. President Obama has ads like the one about steel workers above, as well as videos like “When Mitt Romney Came To Town”, while at the same time, Crossroads Generation, an organization that supports Mitt Romney, recently released a video criticizing President Obama and the issue of student debt. Things are getting heated. Debate is starting. Every four years, this point in time is reached where it turns into a free-for-all and the candidates throw jabs and sometimes uppercuts at each other. This is that point in time. With all the possible ways to get under candidates’ skin and blast them, it turns into a criticism-fest. As if the campaign ads weren’t enough, the Obama administration made a website solely to poke at Romney in relation to his responsibility for job losses. All of these forms of campaigning are used to cause mass flow of information to voters so that they have everything at their disposure. All of this can be linked to Richard Neustadt’s claim of presidential persuasion. A president must persuade those in his cabinet, but that is once he is in office. A presidential candidate and his or her administration must not only dig up information on other candidates that would shoot him or her down, but they must also be able to persuade their audience in order to get their votes.
Presidential elections have and always will be about who can make the other look the worst. It will always be about who can say “Look at me. I’m not going to give you everything, but I’m sure as heck better than that guy”, and then have everyone that hears him believe it. This is the epitome of campaigning and its effect on the voters. It’s giving voters the opportunity to form an opinion, just like I have learned to be able to do by taking this class.
1 Role, 2 Roles, 3 Roles, … It’s called the President
Recently I heard about President Obama hosting the annual Easter Egg Roll as well as visiting troops in Afghanistan. From my government studies, I was able to understand these duties as three of the different roles the President holds: the Chief of State, the Commander in Chief, and the Voice of the People. Originally, I found these two events interesting because they are completely different, but they both include duties of the Chief of State. I was able to further appreciate other ways our President serves the United States.
In hosting the Annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House, the President performs his job as the Chief of State, “the living symbol of the nation.” As Chief of State, he is in charge of ceremonial events, which increase morale in the country. On April 9, 2012, Obama presided over all aspects of hosting this year’s 134th Easter Egg Roll with the theme “Let’s Go, Let’s Play, Let’s Move.” The event included family activities and the traditional egg roll on the South Lawn, as well as “educating families on smart ways to incorporate healthy eating and exercise choices into their daily routines.” In promoting healthy lifestyles, people gained a positive perception of Obama, which reflected positively on America as well. I appreciated Obama’s effort to use the opportunity to spread ideas, which will improve the quality of life for the American people. Next, I found it amusing that President Obama was even represented by a picture of his family’s dog, Bo, on the red Easter egg. In conclusion, Obama successfully performed his duties as he appeared as a remarkable President and representative of the country by hosting a day of fun and promoting healthy lifestyles.
On May 1, 2012, President Obama visited the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to greet the American troops and present ten Purple Hearts. In his visitation, he performed the duty of the Chief of State as well as the Commander in Chief and the Voice of the People. At this event, his duty as the Chief of State is different than when he hosted the Easter Egg Roll. In Afghanistan, he stood as an inspirational symbol of the country while he addressed the troops rather than hosting an event. The soldiers who earned the Purple Hearts held President Obama in high esteem and looked to him as the most important figure in the country. Also, by presenting awards to righteous people, other Americans wanted to gain the same honorable mention, which increases morale in the country. I value the President increasing morale because it strengthens our country’s identity. In addition, as the Commander in Chief, Obama interacted with the troops in order to evaluate strategic plans for conflict and motivate his troops to persevere, “We don’t go looking for a fight. But when we see our homeland violated, when we see our fellow citizens killed, then we understand what we have to do.” Lastly, as the Voice of the People, he gave a message of gratefulness from the people of America to the troops. Obama expressed America’s gratitude in saying,
“And so, together, you guys represent what is best in America. And you’re part of a long line of those who have worn this uniform to make sure that we are free and secure, to make sure that those of us at home have the capacity to live our lives…And I’m here to tell you, everybody in America knows that. And everybody in America appreciates it. And everybody in America honors it.”
The President is able to make speeches like these because he knows the true feelings of the people of America. Obama’s trip to Afghanistan was extremely impressive going a great distance to perform three of his roles.
Soldiers Receiving Purple Hearts
I overlooked the importance of each of the Presidents’ roles in each event until my government studies. In using the knowledge I obtained, I am able to see the significance of each action the President takes. I now see how each role represents not just the President, but also the entire country. President Obama does a great job in juggling all roles at one time and creating a fantastic identity for America. As seen in the two events, Obama is a figure for, speaks for, and gives direction for the United States of America. When throwing an event or giving a speech, he embodies the ideals of this country. While performing his roles, he is motivating, thoughtful, and insightful.
Don’t Let Your Voice Go to Waste
Throughout this trimester, I have learned a great deal of new material. Some I had no clue even existed or went on in our world, like every little step in the election process, from the Iowa Caucus all the way to voting day. There is so much effort and time that is being put into the campaigns. I now have so much respect for the candidates with the devotion of their time they put into everything. With all the time and effort the candidates put into the elections, the LEAST we could do is go vote on voting day. Besides, not everyone is granted this privilege to have a say, so we need to take advantage of this opportunity.
One of the first things the candidates do is the Iowa Caucus. The Iowa caucuses are noteworthy for the amount of media attention they receive during U.S. presidential election years. Since 1972, the Iowa caucuses have been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States. What the candidates do in the caucus is get more familiar with the people in Iowa in hopes to gain their votes. Since Iowa is relatively smaller than other states, this really gives the people the opportunity to really get to know the candidates better. Since they know the candidates on a more personal level, they have a better grasp of what kind of people the candidates really are and have very influential votes. For this reason, makes the Iowa Caucus a very reliable source to predict the future, because eight out of eleven elections, the candidate who won the Caucus ended up winning the whole presidency. The candidates put in a lot of effort, attempting to visit as many cities and make as many speeches and broadcasts as possible in order to get their ideas out in the open.
Another task the candidates have to go through is advertising. The candidates go from house to house, promoting their ideas and hopes for our country. One important key point the candidates try to accomplish, is promote their ideas to the swing states. By mainly focusing on the swing states, they hope to gain more votes. A swing state is a state in which no single candidate or party has overwhelming support in securing that state’s Electoral College votes. Candidates try to win over the swing states’ Electoral College votes so they can add those votes with the other votes that they normally receive from the strong conservatives or strong liberals. Candidates also have to make campaign commercials, but first they have to raise money in order to make these commercials. The candidates put a lot of time into raising money. Once, they have collected enough, they then have to put effort into actually making the campaign commercials. Campaign commercials are not easy to make, because they have to intrigue the viewers to stay attentive while watching it.
All of these exhausting events finally lead up to the voting day, where we the people voice our opinion on who we think would better our country. After all the candidates’ hard work and effort, only one can ultimately win. Our government taught me the vigorous elections process and all the little steps in between. It has also taught me the importance of our voice and how important it is to use it by voting.
Manager for the People
As we discussed in our assignment, “Modern Presidential Roles”, according to Clinton Rossiter, the president of the United States possesses many roles and responsibilities, including those of Chief of State, Chief executive, Commander in chief of the army, chief diplomat, chief legislator, chief of party, voice of the people, protector of the peace, manager of prosperity, and world leader. Among these, is an important, yet controversial role, the “manager of prosperity”. With today’s current economic crisis, questions arise about what the extent of a president’s action should be in order to maintain a capitalist society and democracy. So, how does this affect voting? People of the United States will vote for the candidate whom they think will be the best leader of the nation and the best manager of the economy. And, today, there is a current argument that the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, is not capable of managing the prosperity of the nation because of his personal socioeconomic status.
Yes, many voters today do believe that Obama should be the next president due to the proposed incapability of Mitt Romney to command the economy. Mitt Romney, as stated in many news casts, such as that of USA Today, “The former Massachusetts governor, has disclosed only the broad outlines of his wealth, putting it somewhere from $190 million to $250 million”, which, makes him about “50 times richer than Obama” (1). Thus, this may cause a particular problem with voters. Having a candidate with this vast amount of money, many would doubt his concept of the dollar and his ability to ascertain the value of money. To him, $10,000 dollars is just a sum, with smaller value, but, to many citizens of America, this amount of money is very significant and most likely more than they will ever see. According to a Gallup poll, “Fifty percent of Americans say they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in President Barack Obama to do the right thing for the economy or to recommend the right thing for the economy, while only 42 percent say that about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney”. Thus, Americans are more trusting of the democratic candidate than the republican one.
This situation, however, is even more significant due to our current, insurmountable economic debt. Our government is drowning in debt, with around 15,700,000,000,000 stacking high on our dues. With all of this, our nation has our economic situation as a priority in their minds, and, therefore, this crisis will heavily affect the voters’ decisions. The people of America have two “modern presidential roles” in mind when they are making their decision as to who the president should be: the “manager of prosperity” and the “voice of the people”. The American people want a president that can best relate to their needs in the economy, and, with the great wealth of Mitt Romney, it is likely many citizens would choose Obama for this role. They also want someone who would vie for their needs economically, one who is indicative of the greater population of the United States, and would be their “spokesman” of economic standards. In accordance with these “modern presidential roles”, it is predicted that in the area of economic development, Barack Obama is the preferred candidate.
Politicians Are Humans Too!
Mitt Romney senior year book picture
Throughout the many years which we attend school and listen to our parents we always hear the common sayings when it comes to how to treat your peers: “follow the golden rule”, and “treat others the way you want to be treated”. Well sayings like these worked in kindergarten, but as we get older and develop new ideas and perceptions, especially during our teen years, it is inevitable that we are not going separate ourselves from those who do not think like us. But sometimes this separation is not enough for people, and some feel the need to express their opinions to people who do not believe what they do. Recently Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee running against Obama, had a scandal with a bullying incident which happened way back when he was in high school.
The cranbrook school
Mitt Romney went to a very prestigious prep school near Detroit called Cranbrook during his high school career. Romney did very well in school but as most of do, no matter how wrong we all believe it is, teased a student about his hair and decided to pull a prank on him. The student who accused Romney of this is John Lauber described the attack as if it were a scene pulled out of The Lord of Flies, when simply Romney cut a snippet of the boy’s hair which was hanging over his eyes. Through the complex and twisted world of media, the idea was firstly twisted as if to say that because of this one act, the act of an 18 year old Mitt Romney, should convince us to vote otherwise in the upcoming election. How can the action of an eighteen year old high school student affect how we perceive the man which we see today? Are we to believe that over all of the years that he has lived since then, he has not learned from his mistakes. Are we to believe that politicians do not make mistakes; that politicians are supposed to live above the standards we uphold for ourselves? It does not seem fair to me that because of this one incident which happened in the 1960’s, people can rapidly feel dis-heartened by what he/she did. Everyone who has gone through high school, or life for that matter, are always making mistakes and learning from them and developing. Mitt Romney states,” Back in high school, you know, I did some dumb things, and…I participated in a lot of high jinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize.” Mitt Romney is a person too even though he is a politician. Like all of us he made mistakes in high school and has learned from them.
Obama declares opinion on gay mariage…. Romney has a gay haze scandal leaked? Coincidence?
Secondly around the time this news was released, Obama announced his support for Gay Marriage in America. Allegedly, the student which Romney “bullied” was gay. Romney in an interview claims that they did not talk about sexual orientation and that it was not a deliberate act against gay peoples. Many believe that in light of Obamas new announcement, the story was brought out to bring hatred toward the Romney campaign. Even though Romney has stated that he did not know nor even care for that matter the sexual interests of the individual, the story still brings fourth Romney into a negative light which is meant to show the exaggeration of his views. I simply believe that the incident which happened nearly five decades ago, was a learning experience and should not reflect the Romney of today. If we have learned anything from our time in government, it is that the media and people manipulate stories to their advantage and personal gain, and we as learned men and women must decipher for ourselves what is false and what is fiction. Truly an incident which happened fifty years ago, in high school, has no reflection on a man of today! We all make mistakes, we are all human!; even politicians!
The first president to back gay-marriage; shaping our future
Over class periods of discussing this topic, I began to form more of my own opinion. Listening to my classmates debate about the issues and history pertaining to this topic helped me to gather my own thoughts and consider both sides to the issue equally. Before government class, I had never thought about the matter of gay-marriage. I didn’t have an opinion either way and never gave it a second thought when I would hear information regarding it on the news or online. After debating about this topic, my opinion about gay-marriage developed into seeing no harm in it. Everyone is equal, and all men and women have a freedom of choice. I don’t believe it is right to take away this freedom, and people should marry who they want, no matter if it’s man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man. Same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage should be viewed the exact same in my opinion.
It will be interesting to follow this topic to see how this impacts Obama’s campaign. Will this hurt or help his re-election? His popularity could be increased or damaged based on this one opinion that he shared. Before this class, events like these never caught my eye or made me want to research about them. But these are the events that are shaping our future and should be focused on because we are the future, and decisions and events today will impact it. The young generation should continue to remain a vital part of government and the election process, as we can make a difference and our say means more than you would originally think.
No More Money for “Ronny”
In recent news Ron Paul announced that he will no longer be spending money on his campaign, due to lack of funds, in states that have yet to vote in the Republican primary election, but will continue to work on trying to win delegates. In an open letter to his supporters, Ron Paul wrote, “Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future. Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”
This year in government class we discussed the possible influences money can have on the election process. In my previous post, I talked about the potential corruptive influence of money, but concluded that money is not a corrupting influence in the election process, but is needed for a solid campaign to run smoothly. Ron Paul is now challenging my statement by eliminating money as an influence in his campaign, but continuing to try and win voters and delegates.
Before Ron Paul announced he would no longer fund his campaign, Paul had 104 delegates and Romney had 966 delegates, according to the Associated Press. Ron Paul has only 11 more primaries or caucuses, which ends June 26th, to obtain the 1,144 delegates needed to win. According to an article in USA today, in efforts to stay loyal to his supporters he encouraged them “to make their voices heard by voting in local, state and federal elections, as well as trying to become GOP delegates and running for leadership positions within the party.” With hard work and dedication from his supporters you would think that Ron Paul would still have a chance in the remaining Republican primaries. But without campaign funding, Paul will have trouble winning the race for Republican candidate.
Has the Time for Same-Sex Marriage Come?
On May 9th, 2012 Obama finally stated his stance on same-sex marriage. In his interview with ABC News that morning he gave his affirmation on same-sex marriage. The White House Blog tells you how this was no easy decision for president, and it took him quite some time to come up with his position in this debate between same-sex marriage. His decision started off with talking to the First Lady, Michelle Obama, about what his and hers stance should be on this issue. From there it led to him talking to many people that were in same-sex relationships that were serving in office or fighting over seas because of Obama’s earlier policy that was passed- Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. After that he went onto talking to his two daughters, Sasha and Malia, who happen to have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. His two daughters were unaware of the fact that their friends’ parents are being treated differently because they are in same-sex relationships. The president, after much contemplation, decided his stance and ended with “treat others the way you would want to be treated”. A statement we learned in kindergarten right?
Personally, I feel as if that same-sex marriage is not a big deal. Don’t people always say, “Love is blind”? If we believe in that statement then why are we giving the same-sex couples such a hard time? I see no difference in a woman and woman getting married, a man and man getting married, or a man and a woman getting married. Love knows no gender, it just happens and no one can control whom he or she love. 
And, honestly, we’re in a generation where it’s acceptable to get divorced after 72 days, but a same-sex couple that has been partners for 30+ years has no rights to marriage. How does that even remotely seem okay to people?
In the constitution the 14th Amendment section 1 states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Marriage is a privilege in the United States and the 14th amendment clearly states that no state shall make or enforce laws that take away men and women’s privileges. Not letting same-sex couples could be considered unconstitutional, but then people bring “religion” into it. America is a country that can’t force any religion upon you, and since we have religious freedom they shouldn’t be allowed to use “faith” and “religion” to control whether or not they can get married or not.
This issue may continue on for the next few years, or the next few decades. Either way, this is an issue that needs to be targeted and an issue that needs to be given more thought. Imagine waking up one day and knowing that you don’t have the rights to get married.
Who can get More Dirt on Who?
This year in government we have studied election and how people campaign. Campaign videos have become a big thing that can help a candidate gain votes. Earlier this year we did an activity where we had to watch campaign videos and identify the tone, argument, and emotional appeal. Through watching these videos I realized that videos can have a big impact on a campaign and how the voter feels. These videos added insight to how a video can greatly affect a voter. For example the “Prouder, Stronger, Better” add by Ronald Reagan was a great video because it made you feel like he made America great and after that video I found myself thinking I would have voted for him if i was alive then. The video below shows what a great campaign video looks like and why great videos can change thoughts about someone. 
After studying these videos I realized that they have a great impact on what people think about that person as a candidate. While the video above is a great video and shows so many reasons why Ronald Reagan would be a great president not all videos today follow that path. Today the elections and campaigning is all about who can dig up more dirt on who and make the other candidate look bad to the public. It has almost become something of which people want to make there appearance better to the public than their opposition. The fact is that politics has become dirty and been made into something that it wasn’t in the past. 
When one starts to run for office it is almost as if he must know that sometime during his campaign his opposition will or will try to bring out something dirt about him and try to hurt his campaign.
An example that has just come out recently is how President Obama released a six minute video on the internet talking about all the bad things the Mitt Romney has done in his business days. There is also a shorter television version of the video that will be showed in the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado all of which are considered swing states. 
This video was released to try to sway votes toward Obama by making Romney look bad in the process. In this video it is talked about how Romney costed many people their jobs for his own personal gain but what they leave out it Mitt Romney’s side of the story. Mitt Romney states that he was not in charge of this because he was in charge of the Olympic Committee. This video is a clear stab at Mitt Romney trying to gain more votes for Obama. This is a dirt way to gain votes and in my opinion does not reflect well upon Obama.
This video is discussed in an article in USA Today where they talked about how it was a dirty video from Obama. While I agree that this video is very dirty and wasn’t needed I will say that I know that both sides in campaigns play dirty. Mitt Romney is probably guilty of some dirty advertising as well but in my opinion I think that both sides should cut it out. No one likes people who play dirty and so I personally think that people should play fair and cut out all of this “Dirty play”. What we need is everyone to go back to to advertising like Ronald Reagan. His video “Prouder, Stronger, Better” was a great example of how to campaign and people need to model after that from now on.
Obama’s Support of Gay Marriage: Championing a Change or Ploying for Reelection?
Today, the issue of same-sex marriage is one of the most controversial topics in the UnitedStates.After North Carolina passed Amendment One on May 8th, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, President Barack Obama backed gay marriage later on May 9. With the upcoming election, such a significant decision begs the question, is the President truly trying to make same-sex marriage legal across the nation, or is he trying to gain votes from supporters of gay marriage? According to the Huffington Post, Barack Obama says that, “I’ve always been adamant that gay and lesbian American should be treated fairly”, however, the article also states that the President’s decision will have little political impact because the matter is still being discussed in different lights in many state courts.
Throughout our government class this past year, we examined strategies presidential candidates use to help their campaigns and get elected, including convincing campaign commercials and targeting a young demographic. This study leads me to reexamine the President’s recent support of gay marriage. Just as candidates target a demographic of young voters, could President Obama be using this announcement as a strategy to target the demographic of LGBT voters? The President is well aware that passing national same-sex legislation would be nearly impossible, especially due to the amount of states that have banned same-sex marriage (29 states total) greatly outweighing those that allow it (9 states total), according to the graph seen below from the Pew Research Center. During the President’s first run for office, he only supported civil unions between same-sex couples, so it could be argued that his “change of heart” could have the purpose to gain more votes in the race against Governor Romney, which is predicted to be an incredibly close match up.
Despite these inferences of President Obama’s intentions when it comes to his stance on same-sex marriage, his declaration of support may end up not making a difference to voters whatsoever. According to a poll taken by USA Today, 60% of voters say that the President’s announcement will not make a difference on whom they vote for come November. Only 13% of voters say that his support of gay marriage will make them more likely to vote for him, as opposed to 26% reporting that the President’s stance will make it less likely for them to vote for him. Nevertheless, this historical announcement will make for a very interesting election this fall, and if the President is reelected, I will be even more curious as to whether he chooses to take action on his support of gay marriage, or rather abandons a route of action for a change.
Publik Education is Working… Well isn’t that ironic…
Fact: The majority of kids today attending school can hardly read, let alone write. To these children, simple math without a calculator would be harder than running without legs. Children don’t know many presidents, have no idea who our founding fathers were, and many probably can’t give the name of our current president. This being said, I think it is safe to say most children today don’t finish school with any kind of education. Sure there is a minority of the private school kids with parents who pay very large amounts of money so their kids can emerge with a good education, and even those less privileged kids with amazing stories of how they came out on top. But this is the 10%, leaving the 90% in the unfortunate category. You might be thinking, wow, how do so many kids then make it through college? And the answer is that many don’t. According to the College Academic Board, “approximately 35 percent of students who enter college will drop out during the first year,” and “only 63 percent of students who enroll in a four-year university will earn a degree, and it will take them an average of six years to do so.” Each year, this sad statistic seems to get worse, with no foreseeable end near. Many politicians make clear their concern for the education system, and constantly throw taxpayer money at the situation, but it only seems to get worse. In my opinion, the education is not the main problem, but instead the kids lack motivation to seek out a good well rounded education. For example, public schools across the U.S. use the same types of scheduling, classes, and hold strict rules, which largely affects child participation and cooperation in classrooms.
One way of revamping public education in the U.S. has been reforms. Debates occur votes take place and teachers come together to try and find solutions to questions pertaining to how they can make school days provide more learning with less collateral; Collateral being those who decide school doesn’t make sense, so why try. The head of education at a top university stated that, “public education reforms fail because they are compromised or sabotaged by the education lobbies—teacher associations, administrators, and the legislators in their pockets. There is certainly some truth to this explanation, as we shall see. But in many cases, attributing the failure of reform to subversion merely exonerates that reform. Most reform ideas are either irrelevant or destructive of education. They would fail whether organized political interests opposed them or not.” Her suggestion is that instead of building on the education system that isn’t working, support the current one with minimal change, which will lead to a more successful system each year.
With all of this money and time being spent to better our public education system, and no clear evidence that it is working, it only makes sense that it is the students who are at fault, right? maybe. Many false incentives are provided to children at an early age, influencing their views on their education and its real purpose. Myself along with many students were always told that good grades will lead to a life of success and money, makes sense right? wrong. As a junior in high school, I am mature enough to know that I hold the key to my own future, and it is our view on life that triumphs over grades and measures our success. This realization can be scary to most students, it was for me. Stress gathers, cheating occurs, and then you find yourself in situations that make you question the kind of person you’ve turned into, almost like a mid-teen crisis. Another sad statistic pertaining to our education system is that it can leave average students far behind academically. Many of what could be the most brilliant kids, full of potential, are left in the dust, a wasted mind. In the end, the education system and the pressure around it is what is causing the student to damage the system, with too many worries about getting the A, and less worries about pursuing the potential present in each one of our bodies and minds.
That’s Great President Obama… But When Will Gay Marriage Be Legal?
Today President Obama finally took a stance on same sex marriages. He stated that he personally believes that gays and lesbians should have the right to get married, even though when he was running for office in 2008, he was against same sex marriages but for civil unions. Whether or not gay marriage will be allowed by all the states in the near future is irrelevant; what really matters is that someone in power finally took a firm stance on one side of the issue. Typically, politicians tend to avoid controversial and sensitive social issues in order to avoid stepping on certain people’s toes. However, America is becoming a more open place, and it’s about time for people to start talking about these issues that used to only be talked about behind closed doors.
Obama recently announced his stance on gay marriage.
When it comes to actually implementing gay marriage policies, there is usually some trouble. The constitution does not directly address social issues, let alone gay marriage, so there is a lot of room for debate on any social issue. The constitution does not explicitly say “Gay marriage is ok” but it also does not say “Gay marriage is illegal” or “Gay marriage threatens our democratic ideals”. So when debating gay marriage, it really comes down to how someone interprets the constitution. Whether or not someone uses the Whig model or the Stewardship model will play a part in determining whether or not they believe gay marriage is constitutional or not.
There are also other factors that contribute to any policies made regarding gay marriage. In the status quo of the United States, decisions fall to the individual states regarding gay marriage according to the constitution. Even though President Obama did say he is for same sex marriages, that won’t be enough to change anything because the responsibility of making laws regarding gay marriage falls to the states, and because of the fact that the President does not have ultimate power to make any decision they want. Even if the federal government had the power to make gay marriages legal, the executive and the legislative branches would still have to be able to agree on the issue and enough people would have to want to legalize gay marriage.
While yes, it is great that President Obama can talk openly about his opinions regarding gay marriage, this does not mean that same sex marriages will be legal across America in the near future. In this case, personal opinion does not matter, because in order for gay marriage to be legal across America, many policy hurdles have to be overcome. In reality, same sex marriage will probably not be legal in America for a very long time. However, as a country we are making progress considering people are getting comfortable enough to discuss controversial social issues in public, and for now, that will have to be good enough.
The Unknown World Of Congress
Although we have studied a variety of topics, only one has truly stuck with me and has brought me to question the politics of our time. Before enrolling into this class I believed I knew how the government worked, and everything that there was to know about government; especially Congress. From the elementary classes which briefly touched on the matter I knew the superficial basics of what congress is and how it works. Then, coming into this year when we first stepped into the new unit about congress it was like someone slapped me in the head and took all my lunch money; it seemed that the whole foundation of politics which I had gained was thrown right out the window. Reading the paper which Woodrow Wilson and other articles helping to explain this new modern concept of congress helped my knowledge of the system very much muddled brain to lay a new foundation and develop a starting point for my newly developed view of Congress and how our government actually works today.
Though I was quite confused of how Congress truly worked in the midst of my congressional exploration, I soon became enthralled with the idea of how our system actual works and functions and wanted to know more. While Woodrow Wilson laid down a strong foundation for my new thoughts upon the new Congress I was still slightly confused on the matter of what a committee was at its core value. A congressional committee is a sub- organization of Congress which handles individual matters rather than that of the whole congress. Secondly I was somewhat confused on how these committees worked, and why the way they worked was so controversial. Congressional committees in essence look after ongoing government operations, and offers their view and how they should approach the situation to the main body; Congress. The controversy behind the Congressional committees is similar to that of the classic high school rebel, who is “gonna do he wants, when he wants!” Congressional Committees work harder and provide more input into their own committee rather than focusing on ideas which would benefit the country. Rather than providing input to the congress as whole and actually discussing ideas with the rest of the members of congress, they merely talk about the issues which they believe are important to their committees. Woodrow Wilson stated it beautiful saying, “… it is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work.” Congress at its core is merely a façade of our amusement. The real work happens behind closed doors, in the committee offices.
But this is merely a small matter in the world of controversy. The big story here is that of “bill with holding.” On the way to the White House bills pass through dozens of peoples’ hands, and some of these hands are those of Committees. Bills are assigned to a specific committee for the distinct purposes. In most cases the bill has a role which the committee plays a role in. The problem comes to when the bill actual reaches the committee heads. When a bill reaches the committee, the committees will consider the impact of the bill and weigh cost and benefits. If the bill is approved then they will move it on, but the reality is that a majority of the bills never make it out of committees. It is said that the bills, “died in committee.” I believe that this is a huge injustice which simply slides under the radar. The purpose of our form of government is a government for the people, therefore every bill should have the chance to make it at least to the floor of congress in order for proper evaluation of all peers can take place. If we lose these simple principles where have the values of our times gone? Where have our values of Democracy gone?
The Importance of the Electoral College
In this past trimester we have covered many topics regarding the government and how the government works. We have gone over various topics and parts of the government such as presidency, campaigns, etc. However, in my opinion the most fascinating and interesting thing that we have covered this trimester is the elections. There are a lot of factors that go into the election process that very few people know about. One of, if not the most, important factor that goes into the election process is the Electoral College. The Electoral College is the deciding factor in an election, and has been involved with the government since the first days of the American government. It has survived all the changes in the government that have occurred since the very beginning, and it remains one of the most important aspects of the government today.
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/electorl.htm
The Electoral College is the process in which the President and Vice President are elected. It started with the Founding Fathers, as they faced a challenging conflict between the people and congress. This conflict was the people wanted the popular vote to decide the president, while congress wanted to decide the president because they felt the citizens weren’t able to make a sophisticated vote. The Founding Fathers eventually came to a compromise between the two sides, which is now known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College was established in the second article of the constitution, and amended in the 12th amendment. The 12th amendment didn’t change the function of the Electoral College, but rather the process for choosing the electors. These electors are now appointed by each state; each state has a different number of electors. The number of electors is determined by the number of members the state has in the House of Representatives. These different electors are chosen by the political party committees in their state; there is a total of 538 electors that are members of the Electoral College.
The Electoral College works in a simple concept; the elector “pledges” to elect the candidate that the people vote for. The candidate with the highest total of electoral votes wins the election. However, like I said earlier not every state gets equal amount of electoral votes. This concept of the Electoral College altars the way candidates approach voters and which states they will try harder for. Candidates have realized that they will have the best opportunity to win if they attain the states with the highest electoral votes. The candidate that ultimately receives 270 electoral votes will win the election. This format in which the Electoral College is run has been under constant scrutiny in the past years. The prime example of why the Electoral College is under criticism is the election between George Bush and Al Gore. Al Gore won the popular vote, however, he didn’t win the election because George Bush won the majority of the electoral votes. This incident frightened people because it showed that they were not getting what they wanted, or what they had voted for.
The election process is a very interesting and confusing concept. It is very fascinating to me how the citizens allow for a group of electors to chose their leaders, who will lead and make all the important decisions for their country for at least the next four years. However, this concept also allows for a more educated election. Recent studies show that there has been a decrease in the participation of the people in the elections. This statistic shows that people aren’t putting substantial thought into who they want president, but more focused on the candidate of their political party or other uneducated motives for choosing a candidate. This is why I believe that we should keep the electoral college. The Electoral College is a highly significant necessity of the election process, and it is greatly needed to keep the election process successful. The Electoral College allows for a more educated way to vote for a candidate, which is why it is essential to keep it in the election process.
Understanding The GOP Nomination Race (Without the Help of the Media)
Political cartoons like this shape people's views of politics.
The media has a big influence in society today. Most people get their facts from a bias source such as FOX News, which is notorious for only providing the conservative viewpoint on most issues. Unfortunately, a majority of people don’t know how to view media critically, and distinguish between the facts and a bias opinion. There are two reasons that most people don’t know the difference, the first being a lack of knowledge regarding how to critically view media, and the second being a lack of knowledge regarding how the government works.
According to Stella Della Vigna of Berkely and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University, “In a representative system of government, policy outcomes are affected by the political preferences and the beliefs of the voters. The media plays a key role in shaping these preferences and beliefs. It collects, summarizes, and frames the information that voters use in their voting decisions.” If people only absorb what the media presents, then they are not voting off of all the issue that should be taken into account when voting. Instead, they only see a few issues addressed.
Another problem is the negative propaganda regarding the government in the media. People tend to see articles like this, poking fun of Rick Santorum (all in good humor of course), and take them too literally. They really begin to believe that Rick Santorum is an idiot just based off of a few quotes.
People tend to see political cartoons like this and, whether they realize it or not, their opinion of the government are affected by these.
But because government class taught me how the government really works and how to critically view the media regarding the government, I am able to avoid the trap the media sets. In these most recent months, I have been able to apply what I have learned in government to the GOP nomination race. Instead of looking to social media to form a view of the candidates, I went to the Romney and Santorum campaign websites to see what the candidates really stood for.
Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum
Overall, government class helped me establish my own opinions (uninfluenced by social media) of the candidates. I learned that I actually do not share the beliefs of these candidates, and that I do not support them, but I learned this by going straight to the source for information, not going to a social media site.
This is where many people get their information from. They see other's opinions and allow them to influence themselves.
Also, having a basic knowledge of how the government operates has helped me significantly. As an American citizen, it is important that I know how the government works, and knowing how the government works is especially important now considering the presidential elections are coming up. I learned about political parties, the electoral college, and many other things that influence the election process that I had not previously been aware of. I was able to apply what I had learned and judge what is really going on with the elections. I was able to learn to predict how people would vote based off what the GOP nominees said, and I was able to understand what was going on behind the scenes of the GOP nomination race.
In the end, if not for government class, I could not have seen the current presidential elections from the viewpoint I see them from now. I developed the skills to view the media with a critical eye, and I learned the details that happen behind the scenes of the government. I was able to develop my own political voice, and apply my knowledge to assess the GOP nomination race.
The Interesting Use of Money of Campaigns
During our most recent Government lessons, I was most intrigued by the staggering amount of money spent in elections and campaigns. Michelle Bachman spent over 11 million dollars campaigning for a House seat, almost three times more than her opponent. She was re-elected, most likely because people electing knew much more about her than the other opponent. Many people have argued that money is corruptive and bad for elections while others say it is necessary. After I finished this assignment, I wanted to dig a little deeper into the power of money in elections and trying to follow the money trail.
Elections, whether it’s for the House up to Presidential race, are fueled by money. According to Opensecrets.org, “In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.” That is an absolutely amazing statistic and it shows that the candidate with the most money will most likely be the victor.
In the 2008 election, John McCain received about 50% of his money from individuals, 25% from federal funding, which leaves 25% to the category “other.” Who knows who or what “other” means, but it seems a little sketchy.From federal funding alone, he earned about $84 million dollars (Source: opensecrets.org). To gain federal funding, McCain had to meet qualifications, including, “Spend public funds only for campaign-related expenses or, in the case of a party convention, for convention-related expenses;Limit spending to amounts specified by the campaign finance law; Keep records and, if requested, supply evidence of qualified expenses;” (Source opensecrets.org). During a great recession at this time, it bothers me that Presidential candidates can receive funding from the government if he cannot support his campaign properly. However, if the candidate does not break any of the rules above, he does not have to pay anything he received back. Bringing it back to the election, Barack Obama nearly had three times the money received compared to John McCain, a large advantage in today’s media-filled elections. I’m not saying that Barack Obama won because he had more money to spend, but he did earn a significant, and maybe even unfair, advantage in the Presidential race. Not only did Obama win, but John McCain (kind of) wasted 84 million dollars in a lost campaign.
Another thing I want to learn about is the usage of money in elections. The total expenditures for the total 2012 Presidential elections is in the picture below: (you can click on it to zoom)
Administrative is the largest amount spent toward, which includes running a campaign, including staff salaries and benefits, travel expenses, office rent, utilities, equipment, etc. Basically, administrative expenses are what it takes to run the campaign. In fact, salaries and benefits for members of the administration pretty much equals the amount to create fundraising. Salaries and benefits get the most money out of anything else, which is pretty sketchy to me. Money in campaigns was always a mystery to me; I always thought pretty much all of it was for campaigning. However, it seems that about more than half of the money received goes towards personal expenses. Bringing back John McCain, if over half of the campaigning money was not even used for campaigning, this leads to over $45 million dollars spent for the personal luxuries of running for President: jet rides, fancy dinners, 5 star hotels, etc.. Money in campaigns is a very dangerous threat and must be documented well in order to stop any sneaky business.
Money in elections and campaigns is a tricky business. Money is necessary for informing the people about the candidates but too much money could result in a problem. In elections, money can cause underdogs and favorites in an instance. Michelle Bachman was known nation-wide compared to the almost anonymous opposing candidate. In campaigns, money is used for a variety of things, including the important like fundraising and the mysterious expenses, like the $10 million dollars spent this 2012 election for “miscellaneous administrative.” I do believe that money fuels elections, but the amount of money spent in campaigns might need to be toned down just a bit. The extra money in one candidate’s pockets could be the difference in a close elections.
Why The Youth?
There has always been one problem brought forth for presidential candidates: how to target the youth. Last year had one of the biggest turnouts for youth votes. Every year there is an increase in votes by citizens between 18 and 29, those who are considered the youth. A majority of the time, these voters are the ones who vote more than the other voters for that year.
(PEW Research Center)
Youth voters have become more and more of a deciding factor in presidential elections. When the candidates spend more time targeting the youth, they tend to win for that year. According to PEW Research Center, in the most recent election in 2008, Obama spent more time than McCain on targeting the youth. TIME Magazine named 2008 as The Year of Youth Vote. Although the youth vote itself did not win the vote, the youth’s conversation with their families as well as their work towards spreading their views through technology lead to Obama’s victory. Youth have a stronger voice than most people believe. An example is the recent Kony 2012 campaign, when the youth made a stand to have the government send troops to Uganda. With even a little bit of passion, the youth can change the course of American government.
According to US News, Obama is already ahead in the youth polls. Mitt Romney is also attempting to target the youth, however Obama’s college visits have put him ahead with those under 30. According to Real Clear Politics, Obama is also ahead in the polls overall, partly due to the youth vote.
(PEW Research Center)
Youth vote will be a major factor this year also because of the topics that are relevant in this election. Between birth control, abortions, sexual orientation, and other social topics, the youth are the key targets for this year’s campaigns. Today’s youth are more in touch with these issues that past generations and due to this they will be major contributers to te election. Through every election, the youth are necessary to win the vote.
The Political Process in an Age of Technology
Over the course of this last trimester in our government class, we’ve ventured through so many branches of our government and the processes within it that it was difficult to even start to think about what I wanted to write my reflection on. After a while, I began to think about not only what I found interesting, but what actually was important to me in regard to become a better citizen of the United States. I spun the wheel and I finally landed on technology’s impact on elections and the political process today. As technological advancements are made each and every day, political leaders gain more and more access to the public via the internet, the media, and more. Examples of these are: campaign commercials that can be accessed from all over the world, candidates gaining donations through the internet, and the ability to connect more to the public through the ability to really hear what they have to say. All of these things are both good and bad; however, I believe the increase in access to the public via technology is, in the long run, a good thing. The fact that political leaders are able to get themselves out there much easier allows for people to participate more and be more engaged. As the United States has become more reliant on technology (which is not a good thing for it promotes laziness), it has become all that people do. This is why I chose this topic to reflect on; simply because I, myself, spend so much time utilizing technologies that are available to me.
The campaign commercials’ availability on the internet is a good thing because it allows those who rely on technology to receive political news to see them. It began with only those who had access to a radio could hear the candidates, then it went to television which progressively increased until now, when “47 percent of non-Hispanic whites use the Internet, e-mail or text messaging to get political news or exchange their views, compared with 43 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 50 percent of English-speaking Hispanics” (1). This statistic shows just how many people solely rely on their access to technology. This allows a more technical fight for presidency because it allows more people to see commercials that are both for and against the candidate of their choice, giving them a broader perspective.
http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/2008-presidential-predictions/
Candidates now have the ability to take in donations and other sources of money to spend through the internet. This is a fantastic thing because it helps prevent the “risk of money power dominating the candidate” (2). For so long, candidates that have more money are simply always going to have a better chance to win. This is because, from the get-go, they are able to campaign more, influence more people through said campaigning, and more. Now, with this availability of technology to aid in this financial issue, candidates can be more evenly matched. There will always be a candidate that is funded more heavily than others; however, with technology, hopeful candidates can start their campaigning over the web before the really start it in the political process. This allows for more equality for all.
http://www.prx.org/pieces/25096-clinton-addresses-money-in-politics
Lastly, the ability to have access to the true voices is crucial when talking about the benefits of technology in today’s political process. As Prof. Daniel Kreiss from Stanford University said, “These technologies are bringing about a radical change in the political process as ordinary citizens are increasingly participating and making their voices heard”(3). As more people turn to technology to get their news and see the latest updates about their candidates, it allows more people to communicate in some form with them. In the 2008 election, people made videos and posted them to YouTube to ask questions to candidates of the presidential election during various debates. This alone speaks at length at the vitality of technology in regard to communication between the people and the candidates.
http://socialmediasaturday.eventbrite.com/
This is just a glimpse at what I learned in my government class. As I conclude this post, I think about the fact that before this was brought to my attention, I didn’t even think that this was a factor in the political process. I have been raised in such a technologically advanced age that I wouldn’t have ever known the difference. Before, I can’t imagine what campaigning was really like and the challenges they must have faced. Voter participation wasn’t a big issue because of the universal patriotism during that time, but during the years after that and before the age of technology began, the hoops that candidates must have had to leap through to promote voter participation must’ve been crazy. However, now, “people need little more than an Internet connection to become a more active part of the political process” (1). This is what makes technology so important. At the end of the day, promotion of voter participation and having the peoples’ voices heard are the things that make technology such a benefit in today’s political process.
(2): http://www.sbs-resource.org/technology-in-the-political-process-a-grey-area-with-no-clarity-yet.htm
Third Party Problems
This year in government we have learned many helpful and interesting things. My knowledge about government has increased greatly and in the process it has been fun. We have learned a lot during the past two trimesters from talking about the Declaration of Independence all the way to now where we are studying the Presidency. We have used technology in every class and I feel that this being incorporated in our curriculum has greatly helped me learn and made the process interesting. There have been plenty of interesting things that we have done during the past two trimesters but the thing that I remember most and enjoyed the most was doing the topical debate on whether or not we need a third political party. 
During our second round of topical debates my group was assigned the topic of whether or not there should be a third political party. This topic lead to a great discussion between the two opposing groups. Both sides took turns expressing their point of view on the matter and then the rest of the class listened and in the end voted for who was more persuasive. This exercise was very helpful because we learned a great deal about political parties and also learned greatly by listening in on the other debate topics. The process of actually having to research your topic and know what you were going to say allowed you to easily learn the topic at hand. Also the ability to listen in on other debates was great because it allowed us to understand their topics because they were forced to present it in a way that persuaded you.
I enjoyed the learning about whether or not we needed a third political party because it was something that is discussed in modern day and all throughout history. We started out by just researching about political parties and I gained more interest the deeper in research we got. We learned about why just having two parties is good rather than adding another. I learned that adding another party could mess up how the American party system works. Most of the third parties specify on certain beliefs but share most of their beliefs with one of the major parties. On usgovinfo.about.com all of the major third parties are explained. Once you closely examine all of the parties you will realize none of these parties could defeat the major parties. This means that all the third parties are doing are taking away votes from the major parties if they were made in to major parties. The picture included below shows how very few people support a third party and that in now way will it ever be able to compete with the other two major parties. 
All of the things that I learned about this were very interesting to me because of the fact that it was something that is so big in America. While it is evident most people are with one party or hates the other, these two parties are what keep the government flowing and functioning the way it should. 
The topical debate of whether or not we need a third political party was defiantly my favorite thing that we did this year. While it was not the traditional way of learning I feel this may be one of the things that I learned the most from. This activity was also helpful in understanding what the parties stand for and their main functions for the country. I enjoyed this activity very much and now have a great understanding on why the two political parties for the United States is perfect.
Will You Rock The Vote?
Whether it’s to re-elect President Obama, or have a new president step in and take charge of our nation, it’s almost time to vote. The elections of 2012 are now only a mere 6-ish months away. For upperclassmen in high school, and newbies in college this will be the first election that we get a say in. Maybe that’s worth nothing to us, or maybe within ourselves we know our vote can make a difference, either way we are the voice of tomorrow, we are the Millennial Generation.
Age & the Issues (2008)
Voter Turnout Among 18-to-29 Year-Olds, 1992-2008
According to Pew Research 52% of the voters in 2008 were from ages 18-29, and 66% of that 52% voted for Obama. According to political scientist Daniel Shea “Issues such as climate change, the war in Iraq, gay marriage, the future of Social Security, and health care reform caught young voters’ attention… This reflects their deep concern about the critical issues at stake and the impact of this election on the country’s future.”
Websites such as Rock the Vote are created to help attract young voters, make it easier for them to register for voting, and to keep them up to date with what is going on with the elections currently. Their main mission is to “engage and build political power for young people in our country.” Over the past 21 years that it has been in action it has registered more than 5 million people to vote. According to the website “The Millennial Generation is diverse and huge in number, making up nearly 1/4 of the entire electorate in 2012. This is both the challenge and the opportunity. Rock the Vote is dedicated to building the political power of young people by engaging them in the electoral process, urging politicians to pay attention to issues that matter to young voters, and protecting their fundamental right to vote. Our goal is to reinvigorate our country’s democracy and redefine citizenship for a generation in 2012 and beyond.” 
Websites like this are targeted towards our generation because without us their is no voice for tomorrow; without us issues will go undermined; without us the rights we want for ourselves, for our friends, for our family, and for our future generations will not happen. In order to encourage young voters to vote Rock the Vote has “Scan to Vote” shirts that have the barcodes you can scan from your phone.
Personally, I believe we need to start voting as soon as we are of age. Our votes make a huge difference because it’s when we come into government and state what we want and elections are our time to let candidates know those things. And not only that is an important fact, but if we instill involvement in politics now, we know what to face in the future and what to ask for in the future. For those of us who are going to be voting for our first time we’re going to need to know how the economy is doing, our likely hood for financial aid for college, health care reforms, environmental issues, how quickly we’ll get jobs out of college, etc. Those things won’t be in our favor if we do not stand up and “Rock the Vote” now. Since we are the voice of tomorrow we need to let the candidates know what we want. Even if you take just a quick glance over at the chart to the left, it is us young voters who seem to be more concerned with current issues, we are the ones who voice our opinions more. If we instill in ourselves to “Rock the Vote” starting now then we can pass that onto future generations and have them be more involved from a younger age.
Money: Influential or Corruptive?
Money plays a vital role in the election process, and ever since the early days of the Republic, money has been a major influence on candidates and their campaigns. There are essentially two points of view regarding the influence of money; as a corrupting influence and as a form of political speech needed in elections. Many Americans believe money distorts the election, and gives some candidates an unfair advantage that goes past the election itself and into the policy making process, but i disagree. And according to political scientist Daniel Shay, it was a common practice to “treat” voters, such as George Washington for example, was said to have purchased a quart of rum, wine, beer, or hard cider for every voter in the district where he ran for the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1751. Since then, money has been used to fuel campaigns, in the form of paying for campaign ads, commercials, media ads, such as TV, radio, and newspaper, and sometimes even a newspaper completely. 
By the late 1960’s, money had become critical for 4 main reasons: Decline of path organizations, more voters up for grabs, television, and campaign consultants. All 4 of these reasons changed the way political campaigns are run and are the reasons why money plays such a powerful role in today’s electoral system. These reasons led to efforts to control the flow of money in elections. In response to the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, which ended with the court finding limits on corporate and union campaign spending unconstitutional, Heather K. Gerken (Professor of Law at Yale Law School), stated that, “Rather than trying to limit the power of money in politics, we should harness money’s power to fix politics.” So when answering the question of, is money a corrupting influence? I say no. I believe that money is not a corrupting influence in the election process, but that money is needed for a solid campaign to run smoothly.
The Need to Take Part
“A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election” (Bill Vaughn). But how can this be? Our founding fathers strived to provide for us a nation that was “by the people, for the people”(Abraham Lincoln). Yet, it is apparent today that Americans are too lazy to have their say in the government. This lack of voting spurs an amalgam of problems for our nation including misrepresentation, inaccurate votes, and an unfair advantage to some candidates and bills to be passed. The reasons this lack of voter participation persists includes the possible negative role of the media in influencing the population, the change in current lifestyle of Americans, and the attitudinal change that has occurred among the citizens of the United States, all problems that can and should be solved.
First of all, the negative influence of the current media has caused many to choose not to vote or participate in certain roles of citizenship due to their adverse reactions to the media broadcasts. One cannot take a stroll about town without encountering some sort of advertisement, radio broadcast, or other forms of media influence. With all of this, the minds of the public can’t avoid the overwhelming slur of opinions and information that is fed to them. Yet, although the media can be beneficial for the spread of informative facts about the candidates and current affairs, it can also be a curse by spreading false information about a candidate’s personal life or political beliefs . An example of this is an occurrence with Barack Obama during the 2008 election. The media had spread false information that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States because his birth certificate did “not appear to be an authentic certificate”(1). This media calamity caused many to question the citizenship of Obama, and, even with the release of his legal birth certificate, people today still have doubt(1). Situations like this one seem to discourage citizens from voting for certain candidates, or from even voting at all, sparking lack of voter problems as well.
Next, lifestyle changes among Americans have changed the dynamic of American life, creating a shift into a “busier” schedule for many. This “shift” has caused many to declare themselves “too busy” and become too distracted by all of the outlets of technology and entertainment today. Every minute of an American’s life is filled, whether it is with eating, socializing, surfing the web, moving from point a to b, watching television, working, exercising, or others. Americans are constantly busy with all of their day to day activities, so when do they have time to vote? Americans seem to be too distracted by all of the opportunities the technological and social world has to provide, finding themselves without a spare minute to go and vote. Overall, because of the vast difference in our society today compared to that of 50 years ago, citizens currently feel less inclined to vote due to their busy schedules and constant distractions.
Among the lifestyle changes, Americans have also undergone attitudinal changes, causing them to choose not to vote. Americans have become less and less confident in their government due to the problems throughout the years. According to a survey done by the New York Times, of a “poll of 1,017 adults, conducted in early September… 81 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed”(2), a very significant amount. The diminishing economy, the failure of some bills and laws to be passed, and other mishaps of the government make many doubt the effectiveness of the government. People are wary of the democratic government and some believe a different system would be beneficial for America. Due to these beliefs, many American citizens have chosen not to vote or take part in the democratic process, causing a rise in non-voters and therefore a rise in misrepresentation, unfair advantages and disadvantages, and other effects.
Set Excuses Aside and Vote Proud Today!
The effects of the absence of many voters due to many of the reasons discussed above can be very critical to the United States government. Being a government based upon the democratic belief of representation for all, the United States government depends on the votes of the people to accurately judge how the nation should be governed and what laws should be passed. Without a population of voters that are indicative of the entire nation, the democracy in America could possibly fail. Many people who did not or could not vote would be underrepresented and would be more inclined to have issues with the way the government was making decisions. Voting is a crucial responsibility for all Americans and should be practiced by all in order to create a nation represented “by the people, for the people”(Abraham Lincoln).
Works Cited:
(1) Powell, Kimberly. “Is Barack Obama Really a U.S. Citizen?”. Genealogy. 30 Aug. 2008. Web. 23 Apr. 2012.<http://genealogy.about.com/b/2008/08/30/is-barack-obama-really-a-us-citizen.htmhttp://>.
(2) Rampbell, Catherine. “Losing Faith in Government.” New York Times. 26 Sept. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2012.<http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/losing-faith-in-government/>
The Effectiveness of Campaign Commercials
Above is a screenshot of a campaign ad for Ron Paul
The topic of study that interested me the most this trimester in Government was the Campaign Commercials. Before studying this topic, I never paid any attention to political commercials on TV that played in preparation for the elections. I never thought about why certain commercials were the way they were and why some played music and others did not. One day in class we did a group assignment that challenged our knowledge about these commercials. Our knowledge wasn’t tested from a factual political standpoint per-say but more as of from the media standpoint of these commercials, how different factors could largely impact viewers’ opinions. Before this day in government if I tried to analyze a campaign commercial for effectiveness, I would think about how long the commercial was and if this held my attention. If it did, it would probably make an impact on me. These topic of study in government challenged us to think more and to push ourselves a little further than simply analyzing a commercial based on length in my case.
In this assignment, we were told to analyze several different campaign commercials through four levels of effectiveness: emotion, persuasion, factual claims, and cinematic style. As a group, we broke down these commercials and took them apart, studying every tiny detail that the producers put in the commercial because every aspect of the video is very important. We were challenged to view these commercials from a critical eye with the levels of effectiveness in mind. Some commercials were really influential while others, not so much. We learned that the impact that these commercials did or didn’t make were a direct result of how well the commercials nailed the four levels of effectiveness we were studying about. We learned that in fact the right choice of music or visuals could easily alter the persuasion of the commercial in either a negative or positive way. For example, the “Senator Margaret Chase” commercial was one that my group rated negatively for cinematic style. This ad is extremely boring and uninteresting, lacking sound and music effects as well as other elements to keep viewers interested. A commercial like this would have many viewers flipping the channel and not focusing on Senator Chase’s point that she is trying to get across. Besides rating the commercials based on visual effects, tone and audience directed were other factors that our group analyzed. Turns out these factors played a larger role than I once thought before we studied about these. It was interesting to notice myself watching a commercial on the computer and becoming more and more drawn to the commercial and realize it was because of these factors that drew my attention so well.
With technology developing seemingly at the speed of light nowadays, campaign commercials remain to be an important asset to a successful election. Young voters are a vital part of the election process. In other units of study throughout this trimester, we have learned that while the younger generation has played an avid role in past elections, we might be losing this large group of support because frankly, many just don’t seem to care. Candidates must fight for this attention and what better way to do it than through a short, effective, and visually appealing commercial played on national television for the world to see? Little things can go a long way, and I have first-hand been impacted by the campaign commercials I watched for this topic of study. I can honestly say that if I was eligible to be a voter and saw a commercial on TV that persuaded me, I would be inspired to play a role in the election process and make my vote.
We are Surrounded with Media
The election process has really helped me relate to the work we have been doing in Government class. National Politics really shows how news spreads around the nation and really keeps people informed on what is happening. National Politics has really helped me stay informed on what is happening with the election, Government, Senate, and so on. Media plays a big part in our lives, even if we don’t realize it.
The main event that has really helped me understand the course material would have to be the election. The election has helped me so much because it hits all topics that we have been learning about. The biggest aspect that it helped me understand would be media. I never realized how important media was in today’s world, but really media is how we get all our information. Everywhere we look something is informing us on the news, whether it is facebook, twitter, school, billboards, commercials, etc. Media in general is all around us and helps the candidates spread the word of their ideas. I also never realized how important campaign commercials were in the elections. Campaign commercials is the candidate’s way to basically sum up their ideas and main key points to broadcast to the world and hopefully recruit some support for their campaign. An example of a great campaign commercial is “In America: Anything is Possible” by Mitt Romney. This ad is inspiring, encouraging, and makes the people of America feel safe and united. Without the help of our Government class I would have never been able to indicate a bad commercial from a good commercial if I saw one. Government class has helped me understand what are good qualities for the President of the United States to posses and what qualities we should keep a heads up to watch out for.
Government class is helping me start to form opinions about certain issues, such as who we would want to run our country, how important it is to vote, and social media. Before, Government class, I did not care much about the election process and tried to avoid any information about it. I not only didn’t care for the news because I thought it was boring, but I didn’t like how I didn’t understand the terminology and meaning of some of the statements they stood for. This made me feel less than and incapable of understanding what was happening in our country. Thanks to our government class, I now understand what the president’s run for and what they are trying to accomplish in their campaigns. A great President for our country would be one that followed the Stewardship Model. This means that we could trust our President because we don’t have to limit his powers and that he still has the best interest in our nation. I also now understand that voting is very important. We have the opportunity to have a say in how our nation will be ruled and it is important to have our input so we get the best option possible. Social Media really helps us determine who we want to vote for. Information about the candidates is everywhere and we need to listen. I am looking forward to voting and having a say when I become old enough to vote.
Some other opinions I have started to form is that although media is very helpful and useful to our everyday lives, I don’t think we should rely on it so much. I think Presidents should meet and greet as many people as they can and get on a more personal level with our people, such as when they are in the Iowa Caucus. By getting on a more personal level, it helps the people be more comfortable with you and it really helps them understand what kind of person you are and why they would want you to lead our country. By meeting more people, it would help more people like you, because by taking time out of your day to go talk to someone would make them feel special and just by doing that would help the candidate rally up some votes. The people have the right to fully get to know who their President will be, because being the President is a big deal, and the people need to know that whoever is elected has the best interest of the people in mind, but still willing to do what is best for the country when needed.
A Dollar Paid is a Dollar Earned… Or is it?
You can never have enough money!
Money has always been a contributing factor in political races across the political spectrum, but lately, money seems to bear an even greater importance in the races. An executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network states, “Throughout this decade, money wins 95% of the time.” Also, a research which has been taking place for many years states that it costs about 16% more money each year in order to run. This being said, limited money can be a problem, especially if you intend to win. Another interesting fact concerning money is that to run for state House and Senate, winners in this decade have spent upward of $100,000. With all of this eye opening evidence and blatant facts, there is no way to disprove the fact that more money equals more votes, right? Wrong. To understand why this is wrong, you must know that you could have a billionaire running against a millionaire. Both people can support their dues and successfully run to win, but does the billionaire have the edge? not at all. For example, at this year’s 2012 Iowa Caucus, Rick Santorum defeated big names such as Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, who spent over 20 million dollars each in Iowa. Santorum only spent one million dollars all in, yet he came out on top. Despite this being a small battle in the war for the Republican nomination, it speaks volumes for those candidates with less funding who want to compete and win their political race.
Super PACs are also very important when it comes to money and elections. PAC stands for ‘Political Action Committee,’ this organization campaigns for or against political candidates. Federally, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives more than $1,000, while at the state level, an organization becomes a PAC depending on that state’s election laws. These Super PACs are sometimes the deciding factor when it comes to more money and more votes. So all of this being said, while it is probably true that ‘A dollar paid is a dollar earned,’ it all depends on how this money is being gathered, whether it be from donations, outside spending, government plans, or Super PACs. For example, these Super PACs can collect unlimited amounts of money, and use it all toward one candidate whom they want to win. With all of these overwhelming facts and enticing ideas pushing me farther toward the pro side of this argument, I still have my doubts. For example, think of two candidates in around January, and think about who might be the richer candidate by that November. Say they both get millions and millions over this time span, but candidate #1 makes 50 million more than candidate #2. Candidate #1 won right? maybe, maybe not. Candidate #2 could actually have won because his net worth would be higher, therefore it didn’t matter what sum of money he made, because his net worth was already larger. This being said, I believe that it is not possible at all to know how much money really matters when it comes to campaigns when only factoring in who wins and loses.
In my opinion, modern politics is one of the most complicated systems around when it comes to raising, spending, or anything money. There are so many important factors like votes prior to an election, primaries, finding good candidates, and the fund raising, which all require lots of money. Our country faces deadly challenges, lots of upkeep, and lots of demand for leadership, and these are the factors which should win over money every time. In the end, gold doesn’t always buy you success in politics, but you better be willing to get some, because in the long run it could be the difference between success and failure.
Youth Voters: Our Time is Now
Out of the many concepts related to elections, voter participation was a topic that really affected me in particular. We examined what percentage of youth voted and what motivated them to fulfill their civic duty and vote. I couldn’t help but put myself in the shoes of the youth we were examining and think, “this will be me in one short year.”
What fascinated me was the steady increase in youth voter participation from the year 2000 to today, as seen in our textbook. We learned from author Shea that in the 18-24 year old demographic, in the years 2000, 2004, and 2008, youth voter participation increased from 32.2% to 41.9% to 48.5%, respectively (Shea, 152). Despite there being attitudinal change, or the role of news media affecting the voter turnout negatively, there has still been an increase in youth voting. What is going to motivate myself to vote when the time comes? More so, this leads me to ask the question, what is causing a generation that is periodically stereotyped as lazy and lacking care to vote, and even naive?
Cartoon found at Brian Dennert’s blog
After reading through statistics on how voting increased, I continued to explore the CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning and Engagement) site, I found much information stating that youth want to vote when they are sought out with a quality contact. The answer to why many youths vote is fairly simple: young voters will vote when a campaign campaigns to them. What the message is does not concern young voters; it is how the message is communicated. Young voters respond when they feel that campaigns are speaking directly to them. This is why informative e-mails, Facebook groups, and engaging Twitter accounts are so important to capture the attention of young voters today. Social media seems to consume young people in today’s world, so why not use it for productivity? Implementing social media into the tools to capture the minds of youth voters can lead to a monumental increase in youth voter participation.
In addition to youth being campaigned to, we want our government to have the share the youth’s passion for the issues we care about the most. According to the graph below presented by Complete Campaigns, youth care most about the economy and jobs.
Caring most about jobs and the economy, it is clear that today’s youth is most concerned about financial security for their futures. The key to campaigns engaging youth is showing them that the candidate cares about similar issues. Presenting this shared care of issues is another thing that motivates youth to become involved in the political process.
In my opinion, voter participation has been one of the most vital things I have learned this past trimester. Learning how campaigns will want to secure my vote when the time comes helped me understand why young people vote, as well as why it is so important to get young voters attention. Young voters, my generation, are the future of the country. Our opinions matter equally, if not greater, than the generation running the country currently. Most of all, this lesson motivated me to definitely participate in voting when my time comes.
Budgets Gone Overboard
The money spent by the candidates during the election course is not only really interesting to me but I find that how much money is spent is a warning sign of how dangerous each of the candidate would be to the Presidency. It’s obviously impossible for the candidates to not spend money because of transportation and other necessary elements to running a campaign. However, when a candidate spends more money than necessary, it makes you wonder how well they would handle money during their 4 years of Presidency.
Newt Gingrich is a perfect representation of the danger I am trying to emphasize. Gingrich stated April 9, 2012 that his campaign is now more than 4.5 million dollars in debt (B). He even asked former Presidential candidate Rick Santorum to help pay off his campaigner debt. The mere fact that he is asking a fellow opponent should be the leading factor of potential danger he would be if he were elected Presidency.
As most people know, Mitt Romney is a big money spender in this election, however he handles the way he spends his money very well. Even though what I’m about is a kind of a contradiction to what I stated in the first paragraph, but if he has the ability to spend a lot of money, AND stay out of debt is an example of how well he could potentially maintain his budget and spending if he was to be elected President. He was even able to spend the money donors had given to help former candidate Tim Pawlenty pay off the $435,000 he owed to consultants and his staffers (A).
Resources:
(A): http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-30/romney-pawlenty-campaign-debts/54147698/1
(B): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/08/newt-gingrich-campaign-debt_n_1410784.html
How Far Will They Go?: Manipulation in the 2012 Election
Studying campaign commercials this trimester really peaked my interest. In a world where technology rules, media is extremely important. For an election, media is even more important because it can make a candidate look great or make their supporters doubt whether they still intend on being a supporter. Campaign commercials and other types of media have always been crucial within the election, but in recent years, since technology has become more relevant, these commercials have gained so much power that they could potentially make or break a candidate’s career. In the 2012 election, vital candidates such as Obama, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich have used the power in the media to bring themselves up while tearing their opponents down. This, in theory, seems be fine, it’s a competition after all, but the way that some candidates do this is by manipulation. Candidates can manipulate in many ways, but, ultimately, there are two ways of manipulating in the media: twisting around and placing opponents’ words into different context and omission.
The first way of manipulation in the media is twisting around the words of opponents and placing them into different context. Basically, candidates will take a piece of what an opponent said and use it to their advantage. An example of this is Mitt Romney twisting around the words of Barack Obama saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”. Romney is attempting to manipulate the citizens of New Hampshire by saying that Obama was “trying to distract us from what matters” (http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/mitt-romney-ad-twists-obama-s-words-works/231147/). Later, it was discovered that Obama was actually quoting John McCain. Romney took this quote completely out of context because the actual quote by Obama was, “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose’”. The problem with this, besides the obvious twisting of words, is that the public is not going to go look back on each quote by each candidate, they are just going to hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. Romney’s manipulation here may have actually played a part in helping him become the front-runner of the Republican Party.
An example of omitting the complete truth is Rick Santorum’s campaign commercial that seems to be about Obama and his faults but ends up being about Romney and his. The narrator says that Romney’s “big government-mandating health care included $50 abortions”. This is referring to the state health care law signed by Romney. It said nothing about abortion when he signed it. Later the Commonwealth Connector was forced, by a Supreme Court ruling in 1981 that “women eligible for Medicaid had a state constitutional right to payments for medically necessary abortions” (http://factcheck.org/2012/04/deja-vu-the-latest-attacks-from-santorum/). Again in 1997, the state high court ruled that Massachusetts “must cover medically necessary abortions if it covers other medically necessary care, such as childbirth”. Later, the ad claims that Romney “supported radical environmental job-killing cap and trade”. Many years ago, when Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he had the idea of a regional cap-and-trade system for the Northeast, but then decided to drop the idea completely. Romney clears up the situation by saying that he does not believe in the cap-and-trade program, that it doesn’t make sense for Americans to “spend trillions of dollars to somehow stop global warming”. He said that Americans will lose jobs and that it just wouldn’t be successful because “energy intensive” industries will “just get up and go somewhere else”. But, again, this manipulation in the media completely threw everyone into frenzy, causing them to look away from one candidate and into the dirty little secrets of others.
The easy-access to media has completely changed all presidential campaigns. Because of this easy-access, candidates have been forced to take media and tend it to their needs. Candidates have been forced to use the media in any and all ways that help their campaign. To do this, some candidates turn to the positives aspects of themselves, but, more often than not, candidates use the media to show a negative side to their opponents, and when there isn’t a negative side, or they cant find it; they will turn to lying as a way to make sure that there is a negative aspect. They know it will be seen as negative because they, basically, created it themselves by molding it and warping the truth to look and sound the way that they want it to.
Wondering how much of what you hear is true? Check out factcheck.org!
How Campaign Commercials are Convincing You
I have always found the presidential election an exciting time of political competition. I like to see how each candidate displays their viewpoints and attacks other candidates. In America today, it is apparent that technology shapes our world and candidates have taken that greatly into account. Many political parties use campaign commercials in order to win voters’ support. I have always found the commercials amusing, but not until my time spent in government class did I consider what the producers and campaigners consider while creating the ads. The short commercials often address the points of emotion, persuasion, factual claims, and cinematic style in order to arouse audiences and win supporters for a candidate.
With technology today, it is easy to add things to a commercial, which will catch the audience’s emotions. Music is very important. A song with a beat that is loud and rhythmic provides a feeling of security and determination. A viewer may be engaged in the commercial because they can feel the candidate has a positive strength because of the music, which is what they are looking for in a candidate. In Mccain’s “Freedom” campaign, the music provides a sense of encouragement and a positive attitude, which many Americans would find appealing in a candidate. Another example of catching viewers’ emotions is when the commercial contains a picture or clip, which people would awe over. For example in Romney’s “Better” commercial, a baby is used in order to catch the audience’s attention. The baby is cute and innocent, which causes people to be on the side of the baby. Therefore, the commercial producers make the candidate’s views coordinate with the baby in order to win supporters. Emotional appeals can be a key way in catching people’s attention.
Wouldn’t this baby catch your emotional appeal? (“Better”)
Persuasion is a set of beliefs, where in campaigns, the candidates try to sway their opinions and gain votes from people with their same beliefs. In order to win votes, the candidates must convince their audience. The commercials include information that proves how the candidate is the best choice. In Gore’s “Accountability” campaign commercial from 2000, Gore provides reasons why education is a very important issue. The commercial provides information that people should pick him because he is dedicated to improve education by lowering class sizes. Persuasion is probably the most important style.
Next, the objective, factual claims, is used to show if a candidate is truly committed to what they tell people their viewpoints and goals are. The campaign commercials are able to prove this by providing examples of what they have already done in the past that support their future goals. For example, in Obama’s Early Childhood Education video, facts are provided to show Obama can be trusted in what he says he will do. The commercial provides, “Barack Obama promised to invest in early childhood education,” and then it shows that he kept his promise because he “enabled the head start & early head start programs to serve an additional 61,000 children and their families”. A campaign commercial is able to provide evidence of how a candidate is truthful, which viewers would not have thought about until seeing the commercial.
Lastly, cinematic style is how the filming is edited to please audiences. The different styles include voice-overs, pictures, video transition, etc., which help keep audiences interested. In Bush’s commercial in 2004, the cinematic style creates a comedic commercial. The music helps create the tone of hypocrisy. By using clips of the wind surfer going back and forth, people are able to understand how Kerry often changes his mind. The cinematic style helps enforce ideas and make the main ideas clearer.
As hopefully seen, the different motives all have the same goal in mind: to win the candidate votes in the election. In the end of the day, the commercials are successful if they are able to convince voters. Many of the campaigns become very competitive and will talk bad about the other candidates in order to make themselves look better. In my opinion, I believe using emotion, persuasion, factual claims, and cinematic style is the best way for a candidate to prove himself.
21st Century Citizenship 
