Nowadays, the world of politics undergoes a plenty of considerable changes and improvements. On the one hand, the current President focuses on the development of strong international relations and the identification of the military actions that could influence America and help other countries to solve their own problems and uncertainties. On the other hand, new presidential elections are coming, and people try to understand and make use of the current political campaigns, competitions, and ideas.
The peculiar feature of this political issue is its nature and outcomes that could be observed in the lives of millions of people in the country and worldwide. Though presidential elections are usually defined as the contests between the representatives of two major parties, they are usually more than just that (Holian & Prysby, 2014). In this paper, the US presidential elections of 2016 will be researched and analyzed in order to comprehend how this event is organized, treated in different countries, understood by the native citizens, and accepted by the direct participants of the chosen political race.
A US presidential election is one of the main political events in the country that occurs quadrennially. It is usually introduced as a complex process that consists of a number of stages. Besides, it is one of the most expensive events in the whole world during which several presidential candidates have to complete a number of activities and share their goals and plans with people before the time of a general election comes (Masters & Ratnam, 2016). As a rule, presidential candidates start their campaigns in a certain period of time (usually, it is the beginning of February) and follow the regulations identified by the government.
However, during the last several elections, in some states, it was observed that some candidates try to start their campaigns earlier, organize caucuses, and inform ordinary people about the intentions on the political arena. Some people admit that such decision is a good chance to learn the candidates better, and some people believe that it is just another form of irrational expenses promoted by the government.
Anyway, the majority of foreign countries, as well as many American citizens, cannot help but agree with the fact that though the US presidential elections gain the same form each time they occur, they always come with surprises that may be pleasant, frustrating, shocking, confusing, or unexpectedly effective. For example, the dropped out representative of the Republic Party, Marco Rubio, said that “America’s in the middle of a real political storm, a real tsunami… And we should have seen this coming” (“Who is running for president,” 2016, par. 3). What kind of storm was he talking about? Is it really dangerous for ordinary Americans? The evaluation of the current political situation and the peculiar features of the current elections should be identified and explained to comprehend the worth of the elections in 2016.
A number of people including the candidates, voters, donors, and advertisers are involved. A number of sources including television, the Internet, and other mass media are used to elucidate the events. The relations between different sources and people play an important role in the country because the position of the president predetermines the country’s present and future relations with other countries, the conditions under which the Americans and migrants have to live and work, and the benefits and shortages the country may get.
In 2016, as usual, the fight for the seat of the US President is developed between the representatives of the Republican Party (Trump), the Democratic Party (Clinton or Sanders), the Libertarian Party (Johnson), and the Green Party (Stein). However, the presence of the last two parties remains to be under the question. It is hard to find the cases when the Liberal or the Green members were close to winning the presidential election. The main fight usually takes between the Republicans and the Democrats.
If the American citizens are aware of this fact, why the country continues spending its money on the campaigns for these organizations? Is it true that the presence of these parties in the list is just another possibility to make the Americans believe that they have the rights and choices in politics? A number of questions concerning the organization of the presidential elections and its worth occur.
Nowadays, many countries follow the events that are developing in the USA. For example, Canada is one of the closest friends of America. Its citizens visit the USA for some working or personal reasons. However, the observation of US presidential elections was always nothing more than just the intention to hear the results. Trade relations between two countries have been already identified in terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canada has nothing to be worried about. Still, the recent fights during the presidential elections and the recent political decisions made Canada think about the rationality of the country.
The Canadians cannot understand why such huge nation that always strives for its liberty cannot come to a peaceful decision with some representatives of the Middle Eastern countries and avoid discussions about the place of Muslims in the current world (“From nervous laughter to Trump-supporting Kremlin,” 2016). South Africa is another country that does not understand the choice of the Americans. The citizens of South Africa were pleased with the activities and decisions made by Obama.
They cannot comprehend how the same Americans, who elected Obama several years ago, support the ideas developed by the current presidential candidates to re-evaluate the attitudes to Muslims and Mexicans (“From nervous laughter to Trump-supporting Kremlin,” 2016). The majority of the representatives of Britain underline their sympathy to Hillary Clinton as they believe that this woman can be a successful representative of the country.
At the same time, Britain wants to know about the American intentions in regards to the Middle East and the development of military activities worldwide. The Russian Federation is interested in the developing relations with the USA; therefore, it supports Trump by any possible means. Finally, there are many countries such as India, Japan, Iran, and Israel that begin to think about the importance of the US presidential elections for the whole world.
As it was expected, the opinions of the American citizens divided in the way the political representatives introduce their intentions and plans. There is one group of people, who support the democratic ideas of Clinton and her intentions to develop the sphere of health, stabilize the country’s military position, and regulate the position of the immigrants in the USA. People believe that Clinton’s desire to keep families together should help her to choose a correct decision and help people.
Besides, Clinton does not sound that radical in her intentions to gain control over the health care and the women’s rights to ban abortion (in comparison, Trump wants to defund Planned Parenthood and make abortion illegal). She also wants to improve the conditions under which people can have and use guns. Gun control is another important issue that bothers the politicians. Clinton underlines the necessity to make sure that mentally ill people or criminals could never have access to guns.
Her powerful aspect is the attention to the statistics and the recognition of this issue as a problem. At the same time, she admits that her presidency could help to take the necessary steps to solve this problem and clarify the conditions under which gun control could be possible. Still, there are no clear approaches and methods identified. This person knows about the problem and understands its importance, but she, as many other politicians, cannot explain how it can be actually solved.
Trump introduces a complete opposition to the ideas developed Clinton. He confesses that people love the Second Amendment, and there is no need to change it. At the same time, people should have guarantees that they could be protected by the government against the possible injuries and threats of other people. Trump offers not to reduce the rights for guns but to empower gun owners to protect themselves.
In fact, the ideas offered by Trump and Clinton are like the two shores of the same river. They touch upon the same country, identify the same problems, and underline the necessity to make some improvements. Senator Sanders even says that Hilary and Trump are powerful indeed, still, Clinton is “the lesser of two evils” (Stableford, 2016). All their suggestions will never be alike. Trump is not going to hide the truth that he is a rich person with a plenty of intentions to keep his richness and try to make his country better.
Clinton tries to focus on all aspects of the American life and make voters believe that she could make the world better, provide the Americans with safe living conditions, and improve tax and gun issues. However, it is hard to comprehend how she is going to achieve all her goals. From the perspective of the reality of the candidates’ goals, Trump sounds more persuasive than Clinton. Still, Clinton does not stop believing that her abilities as the president could be impressive indeed.
It is enough to remember the experience of her husband, Bill Clinton, and his achievements in the development of international relations and the improvement of the economy of the country. His decisions were not effective from the first time. It took several months or even years to choose the correct direction. Still, his presidency was successful for the country in many spheres.
In general, it is hard for ordinary people to comprehend which candidate is better for the position of the President of the United States. Therefore, to promote successful and effective presidential elections, people should realize their importance in this process, try to investigate the programs of all participants, and realize how crucial their opinion can be.
Not many countries comprehended the outcomes of the US presidential elections several years ago. Today, the number of countries that follow the development of the events in the political arena of the USA has been considerably increased. The achievements of the political world affect the everyday life, and the sooner people come to the conclusion that presidential elections are not about entertainment and the possibility to compare the powers and ideas of the politicians, the better things and American life can be.
Persuasion is the art of guiding people towards an idea or a course by trying to change their perceptions and attitudes about the same whereas voting means casting a ballot in any form of election. The low voter turnout of youths has been a worrying trend and therefore the need to adopt new ideals that would fast track their participation. This could be achieved by persuading them to get involved using volunteer youth groups, factoring in youth agenda in the policies, engaging modern technology amongst others. All these have produced different results, most of which have impacted positively. In conclusion, it is generally agreed that persuasion tend to influence the perception of people towards a given ideology. This however depends on the approaches and medium used.
Introduction
Voting is the act of casting ballot in an election or a referendum. This can be at the local government, national level or even within organizations and or institutions. Those who turn up to vote are therefore referred to as voters. Various countries use different yardsticks to identify voters. However, the most commonly used is the age factor and the nationality of the voters. In America for instance, any person who has hit the age of 18 years is eligible to vote but can register at the age of 17 ½ years (e. g in the state of Georgia), must be of sound mind, legally resides in state and must not be serving a sentence that relates to felony with moral turpitude: they can as well vote as absentee voters while overseas. Contrary to this, in Kenya and many other African countries, only the citizens that live within the borders of the country and have obtained the national identification card (thus at least 18 years old) are allowed to register. Those who stay overseas are simply locked out of the exercise.
Voters are usually segmented into various categories based on a variety of factors; some of which include the age brackets, economic class, gender, tribe, and or race and level of education (Al From and Victoria Lynch, 2008). This leaves the entire segmentation a little ambiguous as they seem to overlap. The most outstanding one is that of the age bracket, where the potential voters are categorized as young, middle aged and the old voters. Conventionally, these include 18-29 years, 30-55 years, and over 55 years respectively. In any particular country, across the board, the bracket of younger generation constitutes the bulk of the population. The youth are very diverse and more liberal than their older counterparts e. g in America, research conducted by the Pew Research Center on young voter, they realized that about 62% of them between the ages of 18-29 are whites and 18% are black while 14% are Hispanic. The table below gives a brief summary of the diversity in the United States.
Table1: Table showing the Diversity among the Youths:
The success of any particular political party involved in any elections, national or local, can potentially be determined by the youth vote. They are therefore famously referred to as the swing vote. In spite of the numerical advantage that the youths wield, their performance during elections in most countries have not been satisfactory, and this could be attributed to certain factors, some of which are genuine like the residency laws that restrict areas of registration and polling centers. These however, have been taken care of by the use of absentee ballots albeit with still some teething problems. Other reasons narrow down to youth and inexperience, political culture and transient state in their communities (Haslup and O’Loughlin, 2001). As it is put in the Seattle Post Intelligencer newspaper article, others feel that the politicians simply ‘don’t do anything that hits closer home’ and so they don’t really see the point of going to vote. From some quarters, other people tend to reason that those who actively participate in an election do care and are worried about some decisions, a fact that seems to be lacking amongst the youth especially within the age bracket of 18-24 years who generally have fewer things to worry about (Ralph, 2006).
For this trend to change therefore, the political players have to go back to the drawing board to review new strategies to ensure more of the youths get involved in the political processes. One of such includes adoption of persuasion strategies that can work; this in itself being not a very easy task. By definition, it’s the process of guiding the target group towards an idea, principle or action through rational and symbolic means. Generally, it involves changing the attitudes of people towards a specific idea or an item (Cialdini, 2000). In a political contest, persuasion involves the selling of a political party’s agenda while at the same time trashing the opponent’s as lacking in the key fundamentals. The success of this depends on the execution strategy whereby the well executed ones will capture the minds of the populace.
Persuasion Approaches Used to Persuade Young Voters to Vote
The political class has never been left behind in noticing the potential effect of the youth vote and their inherent low voting patterns. This is across the board in almost all countries, since its being projected that out of the world’s population, about 45% are youths. To benefit from this voting block, different politicians from different countries have quite often used different approaches to sway this block to their direction and some have realized substantial success while others have simply failed to make the mark:
During the just concluded US elections, the democratic candidate extensively employed the modern technology to connect with this population. This was made possible by the use of internet and mobile telephony. The registered members could get mails signed by the candidate himself over the net on a daily basis while his team of volunteers worked the phones to get these youth voters pledge their votes. This rather created a personal feeling and an attachment to this candidate. It was therefore not a big a surprise as many would have thought to see a surge in the number of registered democrats. Besides the modern technology employed, the candidate had a strong contingent of volunteers who knocked from door to door to solicit for the votes. In colleges, he had well organized team who would solicit for votes on his behalf. Besides, the registration materials were made available within the colleges through the youth volunteer groups. This could have proved beneficial since these youth college students would employ a language and storyline that resonates well with their colleagues thus creating a better and clearer understanding of the policies. This could not be better capture than it was stated in the Jackson Free Press (November, 2008):
‘Early in his campaign, all the way back to the caucuses in Iowa, Obama organized the youth at almost every college and made his presence known in high schools. His campaign adopted the communication routes of the teen pre-teen crowd, regularly communicating through text messaging and cell phones, and made incredible strides in online financing’.
The political class has quite often tried to use colloquial associated with the youth as a form of identity. This is in an attempt to depict him/her as one of them or at least one who understands their plight. This was particularly portrayed in the Kenyan and even in the US elections whereby the democratic candidate could afford to great the youths who attended his rally using his fist, quite common with the youth, instead of the normal handshake that he employs while with the older voters.
Some politicians have also quite often enlisted the services of celebrities. In this case they hope to cash in on the popularity of the celebrities especially the music artists by winning over their followers. It is believed that some people easily get persuaded towards or away from a particular ideology based on those fronting the same. I this context therefore, some of those ‘fence sitters’ who identify with the particular celebrities will fall over towards that side the celebrity is supporting. This really played out clearly when the US presidential candidates were in a mad rush to seek for endorsements from these people, including even the household newspaper outlets. Almost a similar situation was witnessed in the Kenyan elections where the various political parties chose various hit songs that the youth identified with to be part of their campaign slogans. This could only be done after seeking the express permission of the artist in question. Alternatively, many a politician do host live music bands altogether like in the case of the vine yard mayoral election where Perry Barse hosted a five band rock concert as was reported in the Daily Journal of February 19, 2008.
In the African continent, all haven’t been very rosy when it comes to youth persuasion since time immemorial. The political leadership quite so often uses voter bribery, and specifically to bribe the vulnerable youths who are poor and unemployed. They see this period as a spell for the making of quick money. Not even a single country in the continent can escape the accusation. In such a situation, the political class buys the allegiance of the youth using cheap liquors and a few other goodies, some of which are basic to human survival like food staff especially in the drought prone areas.
It also not a very unusual for politicians to use languages with tribal or racial undertones as a way of scaring members of his tribe or race against his opponent, especially in situations where the opponent comes from a different background in terms of tribe or race. These tactics have paid dividends as the youths are advised to protect ‘their interest’ by keeping the opponent out of the region in question, but with the ramification of leaving the nation divided after the electioneering period. Some have collectively used the propaganda war and rumor mongering strategy to discredit the opponent in the eyes of the youth; they tend to either misinterpret or outwardly lie about the opponent’s plans while glorifying his own as the most youth sensitive so as to be seen as the champion for the youth agenda.
During elections, the politicians try to put their best foot forward. Any politician worth his/her salt cannot turn a blind eye to the youth population. In order to appeal to them, the politicians always try to bring in leaders with youthful appeal into the ranks of the parties only to be a ceremonial one in the management team with the brief of wiring in the youth vote. They develop fantastic policies targeting the youth with the hope that the youth will eventually identify with the party and its candidate. In the African context, however, these have remained just that, ‘fantastic policies’. Also, in some situations, the incumbents who are seeking re-election introduce such programs like the youth fund to appease the majority jobless youths for re-election purposes.
Some political players also buy a good chunk of prime time in media houses, especially when youth programs are run. This way, they target to reach a good number of the youths at once with their messages, usually tailored to touch on the interests of the youth. Some of these may be historical or long and outstanding issues that have remained unresolved like unemployment.
Conclusion
In any endeavor, one must always sit back and review the cost-benefit analysis so as to ascertain whether the effort was worth it. In this light, many a politician must always sit back at the end of the day to take stock on whether their efforts to lure the youth vote bore any fruits. Towards this end, some of the strategies used have proved more effective as they resonate well with the target group whereas others are simply a flop. The yardstick that one can use at the moment of persuasion of the youths is whether the message resonates well or there is some level of rejection:
The use of modern technology seems to have worked wonders. A case in point is in the US elections where the democratic candidate, according to CNN estimates, has at least 4 million friends through the face book page. These are people who have the potential to invite or simply talk their friends into voting for the candidate due to the personal touch and the comfort that goes with it. Moreover, those who signed in on his official campaign website received mails quite so often; mails which are signed by the candidate himself. Also, the strong contingent of youth volunteers in colleges turned the table to his favor. These are facts that can never be over emphasized as the research by the Pew Research Center that was released on November 12, 2008 about how young voters performed during the elections compared to the other previous elections attests to this as summarized in the graph below;
Graph 1: Youth voting Patterns for the Democratic Candidates 1980 in %
From the graph, it can be rightfully be deduced that his strategies that targeted the youths paid dividends since it was the best performance so far put by the democrats among people of that age bracket.
As much as there have been success stories about the various techniques used to lure the youths to one’s camp, some have been retrogressive as they don’t sell with majority of the youths. Use of language negative connotations against the opponents in some instances turn off the youths especially those with at least up to O level education, since they look for points from all the rhetoric by the end of the day. This is true especially in the African continent where as time drags by, the youth tend to deviate from totalitarians and warmongers using the power of their votes. As one writer puts it in the CBS news article titled ‘The Psychology of Political Ads-How Political Campaigns Use Advertising to Trigger Emotions and Change Minds’ written in 2008:
“We have these emotional responses when something negative comes our way; it’s a ‘flight’ type response…, the more negative the stimuli, the harder people slam their eyes shut; When exposed to the negative ads, people did indeed slam their eyes shut harder,”
In conclusion therefore, as much as one would like to dismiss the power of persuasion in any contest, the obvious fact is that it plays a major role in influencing the attitudes of people towards a given course. Moreover, the corporate world could not in any way spend millions of money to produce and air advertisements intended to persuade people to their course.
References
Adam, L. (2008). “Youth Vote More Prominent in Future Elections? ” Jackson Free Press. Mississippi.
Ciadini, R. B. (2000). Influence: Science and practice. 4th Ed. Pg1-5. Allyn & Bacon Publishers.
From, A. and Lynch, V. (2008) ”Who Are the Swing Voters? Key Groups That Decide National Elections in USA” Social Sciences & Humanities magazine. Web.
Keeter, S., Horowitz, J., and Tyson, Alec. (2008). “Young Voters Election” Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Web.
Rolph, A. (2006). “In pursuit of youth, each vote counts” In the pursuit of youth, each vote counts” Washington. Seattle Post Intelligencer. Web.
Zatzariny, T., Jr. (2008). “Mayor will court youth vote with concert” The Daily Journal. Web.
A primary election is a method through which voters select the candidates nominated by their political party from that jurisdiction for a general election that will subsequently take place. This is a very common measure in the United States and there are various types of primary elections. The two basic types are partisan and nonpartisan. Partisan primaries are used to select the candidate who will represent each party in the following general election, while nonpartisan primaries are used to narrow the field down to one eventual position holder. The types of partisan primaries are:
Closed: In the Closed type of primary elections, only the voters who are registered as members of that particular party, and have hence declared which party they are affiliated with, can vote in the party’s primary. Independents do not have the option of participating in this variant of primaries. California is an example of a state which conducts closed primaries. An advantage of the closed primary is that it boosts party unity and ensures that members from other parties do not participate in the process to nominate weaker candidates. A semi-closed hybrid between closed and open primaries also exists. Like the closed, members registered with a party can vote only in that party’s primary but unaffiliated voters can also vote in the semi-closed primary. Different states have different protocols, allowing independents to choose their party either publicly by registering with it or privately when they go to vote.
Open: In this system of primaries registered voters do not have to consider their part affiliation while voting and are free to vote in any party primary. If voters have not registered as members for a party before the primary is held, it is known as pick-a-party primary since the voter has the option of choosing his/her party primary on the day of the election. Alabama and Texas are examples of states which have open primaries. Semi-open primaries also take place, in which the voter can vote in any one party’s primary but must publicly affiliate himself with a primary before he or she goes in to vote.
Run-off: This method prevails primarily in the South in which all candidates (Republicans and Democrats) appear on the same ballot and the recipient of the majority of the vote is awarded the office. A second round is only needed if no candidate receives a majority, in which case the top two candidates (who might even belong to the same party) become opponents in the general election.
Blanket: This is the hybrid of the open and run-off types in which the ballot is not restricted to candidates from any one party and voters have to select one candidate for every office, regardless of their party. Then, the candidates with the most votes from each party take part in the general election as that party’s nominee. This method was used in California between 1998 and 2000 before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional (Harrigan & Nice, 2004).
Nonpartisan elections can also make use of primaries to narrow the set of available candidates to a few who advance to the general election. Typical nonpartisan primary elections are those for city, county, or school board elections, and in these, there are many candidates who wish to become officeholders. Hence, the primary is held to either award the seat to the candidate who attains the majority of the votes, or if no one candidate receives a majority, then the two candidates who received most of the votes progress to the general election (Harrigan & Nice, 2004).
References
Harrigan, John J. & Nice, David C. Politics and Policy in States and Communities. 8th ed. New York: Pearson-Longman, 2004.
The United States presidential election of 2008 will be held on November 4, 2008. The two major parties of the United States political system already have their respective candidates, for the Republican Party, John McCain, a senior United States Senator from Arizona, and for the Democratic Party, a junior United States Senator from Illinois. Little the world knows that there is also a third party in this year’s election. The Libertarian Party will have Bob Barr as their candidate for the coming elections.
The Libertarian Party is the third-largest party in American politics. It claims more than 200,000 registered voters. At the public office level, it asserts to have more than 600 people in position; this includes mayors, county executives, county council members, school board members, and other local officials.
The Libertarian Party was founded in the home of David Nolan in Colorado Springs on December 11, 1971. The founding group includes John Hospers, Edward Crane, Manuel Klausner, Murray Rothbard, R. A. Childs, Theodora (Tonie) Nathan, and Jim Dean. The end of the Gold Standard and the implementation of price controls by President Nixon stimulated the formation of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarians thought that the other major political parties –Republican and Democratic – have deviated already from the libertarian principles of the American Founding Fathers. The libertarian party judges that the present political system is the proper means in effectively implementing the libertarian goals and principles.
The Libertarian Party stands for the American heritage of personal responsibility, enterprise, and liberty. Libertarians view all men as unique individuals. Libertarians want their people to live free and independent. It wants its people to have the freedom to choose the way they want to live their lives as long as they don’t adversely affect the equal rights and welfare of others. A libertarianism is an approach in politics that is people-centered. It supposes that men themselves have the only right to control their own actions. In connection with this, the role that the government will play is the protector of this right. The government under Libertarian rule will keep its people away from force and fraud.
The Libertarian platform is guided by the principle of “mutual respect for rights.” Therefore, they believe that in order to create moral and stable societies, individual liberty must be respected. So basically, the Libertarian party’s platform includes strengthening the recognition of the rights of the people and the protection of those rights. In this regard, the party wanted to adopt the laissez-faire principles that would result in the reduction of the role of the state in the economy.
The effects of this would be the privatization of Social Security and Welfare and deduction of taxes for individuals. For businesses, government intervention will be reduced for local operations and foreign trade. Protection of the rights of the people will be intensified. These include the protection of property rights, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and sexual freedom. The party also opposes civil rights laws that aim to regulate the private sector. Reproductive rights such as access to abortion will not receive intervention from the government. Right to self-defense will be unobstructed. The party also stands for the abolition of laws against victimless crimes, for instance, prostitution and fraternization, among others.
On the issues facing the United States today, here is the Libertarians party’s stand in all of these. the War on Iraq. The Libertarian party is very specific in that it would like the U.S. troops to be pulled out of Iraq in the safest way possible. In protecting civil liberties, the party likes to repeal the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and restricting the Executive Branch from implementing additional limitations that are not set forth in the constitution. Regarding the fiscal situation of the country, the party expects that everyone, including those in the highest positions in the government, to start working on reducing their expenses and promote fiscal adequacy.
They believe that for the government to enact true tax reform, government spending must be controlled. In reducing crimes, the government will focus on protecting the victims and at the same time make the criminals pay full restitution. In protecting the people, the party’s goal is to double the police resources available. The party also aims to increase employment and improve education because they believe that lack of jobs and education is the root of all crimes.
On the issue of the environment, the party recognized the need for action in providing a clean and healthy environment. Though, the party believes that it should be a joint effort by all sectors of the country. On international affairs, the party opposes the present U.S. government policy on giving economic and military aid to foreign countries. On the other hand, the party encourages the free movement of humans as well as capital across national borders.
With the platform prepared by the party, the American people will experience more freedom. Their actions will be subjected to fewer interventions by the government. The end result of all of these will be the reduction of the government size. Many current government functions will be eliminated. The reduced cost in running the government will then be used in implementing the new government’s policies, including the protection of the people from force and fraud.
As compared to the two major political parties in the United States, the Libertarian Party clearly is the party that wants its people to have all the freedom they want to have. Their goals and policy are basically toward the non-intervention of the government with the people’s rights. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, also wants its people to be free, but at the same time, they believe that government intervention is still necessary.
The Republican Party has more conservative policies. In terms of the parties’ stand in current issues facing the United States today, the parties have different views. On the issue of same-sex marriage, the democrats are in favor, on the contrary, republicans oppose this, and the Libertarians do not want government intervention in this issue. On the legalization of abortion, the democrats and the Libertarians are in favor of this, but the republicans currently oppose this action. With regard to the universal healthcare issue, Democrats have mixed views, but the Libertarians and the Republicans are firm in saying that they are not in favor of it.
At the same time, Libertarians and the Republicans agree that taxes must not be increased, but the Democrats have mixed views on this issue. On illegal immigration, the Democrats and the Libertarians all want amnesty and guest workers; the Republicans have mixed views on this. On deficit spending, the Republicans are willing to increase deficit spending, but the Democrats and Libertarians favor its reduction. When asked about the war in Iraq, Democrats and Libertarians are on the same page in opposing the war; the Republicans, however, support the said war.
In an article written by Bob Barr himself in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he wrote that rising disappointment with the two major parties is shown by politically active Americans (Barr, 2006). They say this is due to the over-intervention of the government with the people’s rights. The Libertarians thus believe that the people need a new option. An option that gives the people the true freedom they need. But since the inception of the Libertarian party in 1971, the party never succeeded in winning a presidential election.
The party’s candidates hardy accumulates even a percentage of the votes except during the 1980 elections. On the other hand, a number of Libertarians rule in local public offices. Furthermore, as compared to other third parties, the Libertarian Party is the largest. As mentioned, although third parties don’t perform well enough in the national elections, the presence of third parties in the local political system is very relevant. Albeit they only have a minor presence in Congress, they still bring a major influence in the formation of U.S. policies and in political debate (Nwazota, 2008).
In addition, though it is mentioned that third parties in the United States political system only gather very small percentages of votes, they do affect the outcome of the election by “stealing” votes from another candidate just like what happened to the 2000 presidential elections. Ralph Nader, the presidential candidate of the Green Party took some crucial votes away from Al Gore that resulted to Al Gore’s defeat.
In the 2008 presidential elections, the Libertarian Party’s candidate is Robert Laurence “Bob” Barr, Jr. Bob Barr. He was born on November 5, 1948 in Iowa City, Iowa. He has served as a federal prosecutor and represented Georgia’s 7th congressional district from 1995 to 2003 as a republican. He is one of the leaders in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. On his earlier years, Barr already showed high liberal spirits. He has the position of Grand Histor in the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity. Barr is also a member of the Young Democrats of America and he joined the rally against the Vietnam War.
His career as a representative in Congress is a very colorful one. He started of as a Republican representative of the 7th congressional district of Georgia. But due to differences in interest and opinions, there came a time that he was named as a libertarian. He criticized the policy of the Bush administration about privacy and other civil liberties which is very unusual for a Republican. He disliked the domestic surveillance program and the warrantless spying on the American people. He said that it is an abuse of the due process rights. In addition, his stand on other issues focused more on the rights of the people. He regretted his vote on the Patriot Act.
He wanted the U.S. troop to be pulled out of Iraq. He did not oppose same sex marriages and supported other issues that are in face value, typical to a libertarian to agree on. Finally, in the 2004 Presidential election, Barr endorsed in public the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party and at the same time abandoned the Republican Party.
Barr showed interest in running for the 2008 presidential election early April 2008. he was quoted saying that he would run as the Libertarian presidential candidate if sufficient number of people want him to do so. (Vejnoska, 2008). Eventually, Barr confirmed interest on the 2008 presidential run under the Libertarian party after activists made a Facebook group that aims to draft Barr into the nominations. He formally announced his candidacy on May 12, 2008. After six rounds of voting, Barr turned out to be the 2008 Libertarian Presidential Nominee on May 25, 2008.
According to news sources, the candidacy of Barr will make things complicated for McCain in the 2008 election (Sullivan, 2008). Not only that his candidacy will pose a threat on the unity of the conservatives, Barr’s presence in the presidency will drain votes mostly from the McCain. According to the polling done by Rasmussen Reports, when Barr announced his candidacy, the poll resulted in the vote turnover against McCain. Many analysts say that Barr’s candidacy will be a blow to McCain in some states. It is expected that Barr would be on the ballot of at least 49 states. A poll by Zogby Poll indicated that Barr received 6% of the nationwide vote.
According to an article by Faye Fiore of the Houston Chronicle, other national polls indicate that his support is only around the low to mid-single digits (Fiore, 2008). In a different context, the tone of these news indicate that many still think that the Libertarian party’s presidential candidate is a spoiler in the elections. They say that he will just remove some votes from the Republican candidate; this time from McCain. The obvious impact of this is Obama, the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, will benefit from the lost votes that McCain suffered. However, Barr is firm in saying that he will not be just a spoiler in the coming election
(Sheinin, 2008). He says that if McCain failed to win the election in 2008, it is not because he spoiled it but because the republicans failed to present a vision and an agenda that the people want. On the other hand, Andy Sullivan of Reuters quoted a statement made by a Southern Methodist University professor Cal Jillson saying that the fight between Obama and McCain will not be close enough to the point where Barr’s candidacy will affect the outcome (Sullivan, 2008). They say that the election cycle here in 2008 is still in favor of the Democrats.
For the record, Barr’s proposed campaign budget is between $40 to $45 million which is less than half of McCain and eight times less than of Obama. Furthermore, Barr’s presidential campaign is evidently suffering from the lack of seriousness from the public. News articles often make fun of his candidacy; focusing stories on his mustache or his whipped cream controversy he entered himself into when he licked whipped cream off the chest of a woman during a leukemia research. Even Preston, political analyst for CNN, is very firm in saying that he will not win (Preston, 2008). These problems, among others, are the obvious reasons why analysts say that Barr has a very small chance of winning the 2008 presidential elections.
In my opinion, Bob Barr’s candidacy for the 2008 presidential elections will have an impact on the whole presidential campaign. First, it will give the people a third option. People that are not satisfied or do not believe to the agenda of the two major political party in the country will be given a chance to consider another option. Second, it is of no doubt that Barr will really steal some crucial votes from McCain, although this can only be true if the race between Obama and McCain is so tight. Lastly, because of this threat to spoil votes for McCain, Barr’s campaign, which is believed to be the strongest so far by a Libertarian, will make the other parties especially the Republicans to focus campaign efforts on states that are believed to be the strongest points of Barr.
By considering all of these factors, the likely outcome for Barr’s presidential candidacy is, defeat. In terms of the campaign fund, which many believes is a great success factor, Barr’s resources are significantly small. The fact that people still do not take his candidacy seriously is also a great indication that he will not have a good chance of winning.
Although, he is still only considered as a potential spoiler to the 2008 presidential election, the difference it will make in American democracy is still great. Barr’s candidacy shows that it is always worth the try. No one knows if in the future, the Libertarian party will gain ground in the American political system. But at the present time, it is obvious that the party has not been taken seriously by the people. It will still take time before the party can receive the seriousness they need from the people.
References
Nwazota, K. Third Parties in the U.S. Political Process. 2008. Web.
Two general elections were held in the UK in 1974. During that time, there were three dominant political parties namely; Liberal, Conservative and the Labour party. The first election was held in February and the second one in October. In the first general election, the Conservative party won by a slim margin but was not enough to give it a conclusive majority in the House of Commons. In fact, the Conservative Party had 37.9% of the votes cast while the Labour Party had 37.2%.
In the second elections held in October, the Labour party emerged victorious garnering 39.2% of the votes while the Conservative Party came in second with 35.8% of the votes. Though we can say that the Conservative party did not lose the first elections per se, the argument still holds that the party lost the election since it did not occupy office as is the case with winning an election. The losing is cemented by the resigning of the incumbent Conservative Party leader Edward Heath.
Various authors and political analysts have come out to dissect the reasons as to why such a previously dominant party and an incumbent by then lost two general elections in the space of one year. In this paper, we critically take an incisive look at the various factors that could have contributed to the party’s failure of retaining its position in forming a government.
Why the Conservatives lost the 1974 general elections
The main failing of the Conservative Party was placed on its policies expressed in the party’s manifesto. In the party’s manifesto emphasis was placed on protecting Britain from external threats, protecting the environment, curbing the energy crisis, rewarding pensioners more handsomely, protecting the rights of the individual, reforming the local governments, seeking peace in Northern Ireland, protect and preserve the Sovereignty of Britain, restraining and strengthening of immigration laws, promoting the arts and music sector of the economy and finally improving education.
However, it is important to note some of these ideas were the same as those of other parties including the Labour Party as the major threat to the Conservative Party. However, differences existed on how to effect some of the recommended measures.
The Labour Party believed in developing education by introducing a national scheme of Nursery Schools and daycare facilities. This was meant to take care of the young children who were more often than not left unattended in education matters until a later age. The proposed program was also to take care of the older children in the range of 16 to 18 years through increasing the number of schools. Other institutions would be set up to take care of kids with special needs. The Conservative Party also pledged all of this but the main difference was their stand on grants and tax relief to fund public schools.
The conservatives firmly believed that providing grants and other forms of financial support to public schools would improve the situation while the Labour Party believed that any form of grants and charity towards public schools should be withdrawn. by a big expansion of educational facilities for 16-18-year-olds, by finally ending the 11+ and by providing additional resources for children in special need of help. They were to speed the development of a universal system of fully comprehensive secondary schools. All forms of tax relief and charitable status for public schools will be withdrawn. This is one of the policies that came to cost the Conservative party as the public seemed to favour the Labour party’s idea of abolishing grants and tax relief to public schools.
Another major difference that had even before the election set the parties on different paths was the issue regarding race and immigration. The conservatives had in 1971 managed to pass an act of parliament that called for more stringent rules in immigration laws. To the Labour Party, the laws though not directly related, promoted racism. According to the Labour Party’s manifesto of 1974, the party promised to review the law on nationality so that it was based on citizenship and eliminate discrimination on the basis of colour. In defending their stance the Conservatives argued that they were protecting the local British citizen from overcrowding the labour sector as it seemed by then that employment levels were declining.
The popular idea in regards to racism and immigration was to become one of the greatest differences between the two parties which according to Brown (1999) was the final nail to the Conservatives coffin in regards to the 1974 general elections. The electorate was as is expected consisting of both the sellers and the buyers. Therefore it was the idea of seeking a balance in finding favour with both parties that would win votes and support from either side.
Consumer protection by the government was high on the agenda for the two parties. However, there are many differences in the way that the two parties viewed on the best way of protecting the consumer. To the Labour Party protecting the consumer meant reducing the power of monopolies and nationalize some of the major companies in crucial industries. The targets, in this case, were the shipbuilding and mining sectors. However, the party took caution and renamed this process as socializing the industries.
Such a move was aimed at seeking favour with a larger consumer electorate. The Labour party on the other hand sought to strengthen the capitalist industries owned by individuals as a means of increasing the employment levels in the country. The move was also meant to seek the establishment of strong consumer trade unions that would protect the public. On the other hand, the Conservative Party was a bit sceptical about trade unions as to them they seemed to be one of the many avenues to fleece consumers.
1974 happened to the year when the 1970’s oil embargo was biting hard across the globe. Having been in power, the conservative Party was blamed for the hard economic times that we’re facing Britain by then. But contrary to common belief among the locals, the problem was not unique to Britain alone. What followed after was the upsurge in global prices of commodities thereby driving the cost of living high.
As is common, the Government in power in such times of crisis takes the blame with the opposition quick to take advantage and pint fingers at the government in power. This worked for the Labour Party. In their campaigns then, they emphasized the need to bring about a change in the way things were being done by the government in power. Their campaigns bore fruit as the desperate electorate loaded with the burden of increasing costs of living believed in the Labour Party’s promises of a better future with more bearable product prices. The conservatives failed in assuring the electorate of their capabilities in arresting the situation and thus lost.
The ability by the Labour Party in its campaigns to convince the electorate that a change in the custodian of the state was the only way forward was deemed to work. The Labour Party candidate Harold Wilson was often quoted saying ”Britain needs a new Government, and the Labour Party is ready with the policies essential to rescue the nation from the most serious political and economic crisis since 1945.” In his terms, he referred to the rising prices and housing costs. He was aware of the causes that had led to the crisis; oil shortage. As a politician, he did not play the ball in agreeing that some of the occurrences were beyond the British government’s help but could only dilute the situation but an absolute answer could not be found.
Harold and Labour’s main selling point unlike the Conservatives was that they were promising change to the electorate to the very dire situation. Out of desperation, the electorate bought the Labour’s ideas. However, it must be noted and credit is given where due that though the Tories as the Conservatives are fondly known lost the two elections narrowly. This pointed to something bigger; the party had support only the marketing of the party and more so the timing. Otherwise, the situation would have been completely different.
In regards to the timing of the elections apart from the slackening global economy due to the world energy crisis, Britain was losing its global political position gradually. In the early 1970’s Edward Heath, a Conservative as the British Premier had seen the worsening of the situation of the war in Northern Ireland. Between 1970 and 1974 Britain was plagued by a stagnant economy and a declining international political position. Patriotism crusaders were quick to point and blame the government in power due to the falling popularity of the country. Joined by the Labour’s the labelling and blaming of the Conservative government was to have a greater effect than earlier thought.
One thing that is undeniable in any given election be it in political parties or other areas is the personality of the candidates. For once, the incumbent Conservatives led by Edward Heath were according to Heclo (1974, pg 229) supposed to have an advantage over their rivals. Why? Because he argues that the party had a proven track record though not anything extraordinary to show for unlike the case with their rivals.
Having accomplished in registering Britain to the European Community today known as the European Union, Heath had other minor accomplishments to boast of only that he didn’t know how to formulate them into winning ideas. In politics, it is important to be convincing so as your ideas seem to have life and are capable of cultivating confidence from the electorate and other stakeholders such as investors both local and foreign.
In doing this Heath could not match Harold. In fact, Owen (1988, pg 118) refers to Harold’s speeches as a winning strategy and not only as a campaign highway. Another personality issue linked to having caused the Conservatives the chance to form a government was Heath’s three-day work week to conserve energy, and pacify the effect of striking miners. This plan did not work out in his favour. It backfired and put the government and the country into more trouble.
As one of the world’s superpowers and a force to reckon with (as shown during the Second and First World War), Britain’s relationship with the outside world is paramount in determining the way forward in terms of world peace and development. As such the issue of foreign policy took centre stage in selling the party’s manifestos and ideas during the two general elections. Though the ideas and policies bought forward by the rivals were viewed to protect the sovereignty of Britain and maintaining her influential position in global politics not any of them would work as efficiently as the other.
Therefore the task rested in finding the most appropriate combination with the least possible repercussions. In their manifesto, the Labour Party submitted that the way Britain relates with other countries in the world is very crucial as states were increasingly becoming more and more economically and politically interdependent. The energy crisis that had plagued the world in the last two years prior to the elections was a pointer to the need for better cooperation with other countries to avert a repeat of such a case.
The Labour Party accused the Conservative government of failing to curb the energy crisis which had been created intentionally by the oil-producing countries in order to hike world oil prices. In the long run, the Labour motivated the Electorate in finding fault with the Conservative government for failing to curb the crisis. In their manifesto thus, the Labour party promised to forge more cordial relationships with Commonwealth member countries and oil-producing countries so as to court them to increase oil supply to ease the prices.
In the unedited version of the Labour Party 1974 manifesto, it is written ”The same is true if the world is to succeed in solving the problems of inflation, of poverty, of economic growth and full employment. We are more than ever in one world. Labour’s foreign policy is, therefore, dedicated to strengthening international institutions and to world co-operation in all fields, including trade and currency.” Contrary to this, the Conservatives’ foreign policy was not that convincing. In the 1974 Conservative manifesto, this is what the party promised the electorate, ”In the last two years there has been a dramatic rise in the world price of almost all the essential raw materials and foods which we have to import from overseas.
Many of these prices have doubled in the past year alone, making it impossible to stem the rise in the cost of living. Now on top of these increases comes the huge increase in oil prices, which in turn will affect the cost of almost everything that we produce or buy in this country.” Though this might have been the reality, it was not what the already suffering citizen would love to hear under any circumstances. The Labour knew that the trick lay in promising a good future though the probability of it happening was slim it was still workable. In the long run, their method worked to their advantage.
Conclusions
The Conservatives have lost two general elections narrowly in the space of one year felt really offended. The moral from the narrow losses led to the party reorganizing itself with high levels of success. This was demonstrated with the following general elections where the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher formed the government whose uninterrupted term was a very significant show of the might of the Conservatives. Therefore in my opinion and as analysts have shown, the Conservatives lost the elections not because it was the weaker party in terms of numbers but due to timing and other external forces.
References
Brown, M. (2007) Politics in the face of a crisis. London: OUP.
Owen, K. (1999) The making of a leader. London: Penguin.
Heclo, Mian et al. (1977) The Conservative Party: Down but not out. New York: Prentice Hall.
Raymond, C. (2006) Labour vs. Tories: A tale of two rivals. London: Macmillan.
Ramsden, J. (1980) The Making of Conservative Policy. London: Longman. Web.
The United States of America president is elected through a popular and electoral vote. The popular vote is cast by all willing adult registered voters throughout the country. The voters also choose the electors who will vote in the Electoral College on the day of the presidential general election. Not all states though participate in the Electoral College. The system does not cater to citizens in United States territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, and United States Virgin Islands (Kuroda, p. 14).
The quadrennial United States presidential election was held on November 4, 2008, where Democratic candidate senator Barrack Obama defeated the Republican candidate senator John McCain based on popular votes as well as the projected electoral vote. Their running mates were Delaware senator Joe Biden and the Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. The electoral vote will be held on December 15, 2008, where the selected electors from fifty states will elect a president and the vice president. 2008 was historic in many ways. It was the first time that an African American was elected president, the first time two sitting senators competed, the first time the Republican vice presidential candidate was a woman, the second time both the winning presidential and vice-presidential candidates were active senators, and the first time that the elected vice president was Roman catholic. Barack Obama and Senator McCain also recorded the largest age disparity between presidential candidates (Feldman, p. 2).
By American standards, the voter turnout was a record high estimated to be more than 131 million votes which is more than 62% of the total. Senator Barack Obama won 365 projected electoral votes with Senator McCain taking 176. Senator Obama or president-elect if you like, took 68,800,158 (52.8%) of the popular vote while McCain trailed with 59,607,254 (45.8%). There are several factors that propelled the Illinois senator to a convincing victory. The economic turmoil and antipathy to the current president George Bush played a major role in making the voters fearful of an extended Republican Party administration. More than half of the voters said the economy was in very poor condition and had their concern about the direction the economy will take. Out of ten voters polled, eight admitted that the current economic crisis would hurt their family’s finances. Senator Obama was far more successful in convincing voters that he was better placed to get things back on track than his colleague John McCain was. As he put it in his own words, ‘we don’t want four more years of the last eight years. The widespread negative feelings towards the incumbent president and his policies were a major problem for senator McCain and a big plus for the Democratic candidate. Senator Obama did not make it better for McCain by repeatedly saying that the Republican candidate voted 90% on policies the Bush way. President elects Obama got more than sixty percent of the votes of the people who said the economy was poor and those who said it would hurt their families. The senator faired well among voters of every financial class, the poor as well as the wealthy. For those with incomes less than $50,000, Obama won 60% of their vote, those earning at least $100,000; he ran even with the Republican and beat senator McCain among those earning more than $200,000 (Jones, p. 1).
Senator Obama was weak though on the National Security front, where McCain got 54% compared to Obama’s 43%. However, this group, whose main focus was terrorism, only constituted 25% of all voters. Senator Obama also received a major boost from African-Americans and Hispanic voters recording 95% and more than 65% from both groups respectively. Another factor that contributed to Obama’s victory is his resourceful and dedicated campaign team. Senator Obama and his campaign team were smart enough not to accept public financing after realizing that he was making fundraising records throughout his campaigns. Senator McCain accepted public financing, agreeing to spending limits and by this giving Obama an edge (Jones, p. 1).
California resoundingly embraced Obama’s message for change and voted overwhelmingly for him. Residents poured into the streets to celebrate Senator Obama’s historic win especially in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. One of the propositions that attracted the most attention in the California elections was proposition eight which covered the issue of gay marriage. The proposition sought to legalize gay marriage in the state of California but was voted down. One factor attributed to its fall was perhaps the effect that black and Hispanic voters had on the voting outcome. The California Supreme Court is set to hear the many challenges coming up against proposition eight. Gay legal groups filed a petition on 5th November requesting the Supreme Court to overturn the voters’ decision. This was seen as a sign that gay rights were this time sidelined. A rally was even held by gay rights activists in West Hollywood to protest the outcome. Californian residents decided to outlaw gay marriages by more than 52%, overturning a Supreme Court decision that allowed gay couples to wed. Proposition eight attracted huge debate and money too with a whopping 73 million dollars being spent by both opposing and proposing sides. The decision creates uncertainty for those who have already wed and is bad news to those who hoped to. Proposition four, a ballot measure requiring parents to be notified before doctors perform an abortion on a minor was rejected. More than 52% of the voters rejected the proposition.
Mitt Romney, the Republican Party presidential candidate in the forthcoming November 2012 presidential elections, has chosen Paul Ryan as his running mate. There are several criteria that presidential candidates use in selecting their running mates, as analyzed by Baumgarter (765-772). This essay will analyze the factors considered in the selection of a running mate by a presidential candidate, as examined in the article, and will try to make a case for why Paul Ryan was chosen as Mitt Romney’s running mate.
According to Baumgarter (765), the vice presidential selection has been historically influenced by electoral concerns. The main criterion for evaluating vice presidential contenders is whether they bring additional votes to the presidential ticket of the party or not. The size of the home state of a vice presidential candidate is one of the factors considered. Selecting a running mate from a region that is different from the presidential candidate has also been the norm. The idea behind this is that the vice presidential selection provides some consolidation, support, and recognition for those factions and interests within a party that had not been present during the presidential balloting. Paul Ryan hails from a hotly-contested district in Wisconsin. To date, he has managed to defeat every candidate he has contested against since he first contested in 1998. As Mitt Romney is currently trailing in popularity in Wisconsin, it makes the state almost equally up for grabs. In June 2012, a poll of Wisconsin voters showed incumbent president Obama defeating Romney by 50 per cent to 44 per cent. However, when Paul Ryan got the vice presidential ticket, Obama’s lead dropped by one percentage point.
Baumgarter (766) is of the opinion that another factor that is largely ignored by literature is the exposure that the vice presidential nominee gets from the national media. This is vital in the first instance since the more a candidate gets media exposure, more recognition for him. Putting scandals aside, this could add to the ticket some electoral appeal, although this does not apply in all cases. Additionally, since the potential vice presidential candidates’ vetting process has become intensive of late, the media plays a vital and informal role in this process. Ryan has faced numerous attacks in the past from his opponents but emerged from them unhurt. A few months ago, Ryan debated entitlement reform with a Republican named Barney Frank, who appeared ill-informed and rude. Ryan won the hearts of the audience by remaining calm all through the debate. Ryan manages to keep his composure when everyone else is on fire. He is non-threatening and reasonable, something that voters admire. Democrats are engaged in faultfinding and attacking the so called “Romney-Ryan” budget plan. With his reputation, Paul Ryan is the best person to defend it up front.
In conclusion, presidential candidates consider several factors when choosing their running mates. Some of the factors most commonly looked at are the nominees’ home region, and their exposure to the national media. Paul Ryan hails from Wisconsin, where he is popular despite his party not doing so well there. He will certainly secure the region’s votes for Romney. Additionally, Paul Ryan is popular with the national media, owing to his uncontroversial manner of dealing with issues. These attributes justify his selection as Mitt Romney’s running mate in his race to White House.
Works Cited
Baumgarter, Jody C. The Veepstakes: Forecasting Vice Presidential Selection in 2008. Political Sciences and Politics. 41 (4) (2008), 765-772.
The December 2008 US presidential elections marked a point of history where the first African American was elected to occupy the most prestigious office in the white house. While polls had indicated that Barrack Obama, the Democrat candidate was more likely to win the elections than his closest rival, John McCain, the Republican candidate, not many people had expected such a landslide victory. This paper will outline the two candidates, how they competed during the runoff to the elections, and identify what factors placed the Democrat candidate at an advantage, hence handing him victory at the end of the race.
Born Barrack Hussein Obama Jr, the Democrat candidate was the first child of a white mother, Ann Dunham, and a Kenyan father, Barrack Obama Sr., by his conception; both his parents were young students at the University of Hawaii. Later, his father left for Harvard before traveling back to Kenya, leaving the two behind. Ann Dunham then married an oil manager from Indonesia. This forced them to move to Indonesia. Barrack was age six. In Indonesia, Barrack recounts tastes of poverty that marked the developing country. Later, he moved back to Hawaii, where he stayed with his grandmother. Although his father called him regularly, he only visited them once when Barrack was ten years old (IMDb, 2009).
Obama studied in Punahou School, one of the prestigious institutions in Hawaii. He later joined Columbia University and studied law. He later moved to Chicago to work with a church-based organization that assisted poor residents of the Southside. He moved to Harvard Law School, where he became the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review. Upon completing his studies, he declined a judicial clerkship offer. He preferred to represent victims of discrimination in housing and employment and legislation of voting right as a civil rights practitioner in Chicago. He ran for the seat of Senator in the same District under the Democrat ticket and won. He represented Illinois in the US Senate in the year 2004. He gained national acclaim when he gave a rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention. In 2008 he ran for the presidency on a Democratic ticket and won (IMDb, 2009).
On his part, John Sydney McCain III was born in 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in Panama Canal Zone. He was the second son of John S. McCain Jr and Roberta McCain. Both his father and grandfather were four-star admirals. His father later became the overall commander of the US naval forces within the Pacific. McCain had a stint in several prestigious schools before he graduated in 1954 from Episcopal High School. From the Naval Academy, McCain graduated in 1958 and later from the flight school in 1960 (Biography, 2009).
He later volunteered to offer his services in the Vietnam War, flying low-altitude attack planes. He escaped death when 134 of his counterparts died in a missile ripped through his A-4 Skyhawk plane. In 1967, his aircraft was short, and he broke both his arms and one leg. He was captured and imprisoned at Hoa Loa Prison in Hanoi. He was offered early release due to his being the son of a high-ranking. Officer, which he refused. This could have been used as propaganda and also a breach of the naval codes of conduct. He then spent five years as a prisoner of war, where he was tortured and beaten till 1973, when he was released along with several other American POWs. He earned several medals, including the bronze star, the Silver Star, the flying cross, and the Purple Heart. He underwent rehabilitation before he resumed his flying duty, but his injuries would not permit him to do so (Biography, 2009).
He was assigned Navy’s Liaison Officer to the senate before Marrying Cindy as his second wife. He retired to Arizona, where he worked in his father-in-law’s beer distributing business as a Public Relations officer (Biography, 2009).
During the runoffs, several politicians and public figures engaged in the process of endorsing their favorite candidates. Each tried to offer reasons why their favorite candidates were more suitable for the post than the opponents. On his part, Obama received endorsements from Thomas Daschle, Adrien Fenty, Rod Blagojevich, Dick Durbin, Rich Daley, Ted Sorenson, Arthur Davis, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, Oprah Winfrey, Will Smith, George Clooney, Halle Berry, Chris Rock, Usher, and many civil rights and religious leaders including Joseph Lowery, Michael Battle, Rev Lawrence Carter, and Dewitt Smith among others. Media organizations like the Boston Globe, Portsmouth Herald, New York Times, Des Moines, and others also endorsed Obama (Katunda, 2008).
John McCain was endorsed by Henry Kissinger, Joe Lieberman, Jeb Bush, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Jeff Hagee, Arnold Schwarzenegger, The New York Times, Trent Lot, Curt Schilling, Alexander Haig, Jane Swift, Norman Schwarzkopf, Tim Pawlenty and several other religious figures and political figures who felt that he was better placed to lead the Nation into the future (Mahalo, 2009).
Several reasons helped Obama win the elections. The first reason was his identification and understanding of the economic fears of the middle and low-class families. He was born and brought up in the same lifestyle and therefore made adequate strategies to solve these problems. McCain did not have this experience. Obama had a leader-like calm, thoughtful nature, and other leadership qualities that most endorsements did not mention. On the other part, McCain had a reckless and unpredictable nature. Obama’s health care insurance plan was all-inclusive and would allow all Americans access to good health care services, unlike McCain’s, which would have sidelined some poor Americans. The decision to withdraw the American troops from Iraq also helped Obama win the elections. Most Americans were fed up with the war. Finally, the choice of Joe Bidden as a running mate was great because his experience and the fact that he was well-liked by many Americans was an advantage. He would serve as a suitable counsel to the president and qualify to be president should the president fail to continue operating in the office (White, 2009).
The first forty days in office witnessed several events and steps taken by Obama. The president signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that would specify minimum wage for workers, shut down the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility, pushed and succeeded for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act worth $789 billion, engaged to have the banks nationalized, issued a housing plan that would cost $275 billion, improved on the faith-based initiatives and finally he has come up with the Financial Stability Plan with the Capital Assistance Program for the Treasury Department (Bourque, 2009).
In conclusion, Obama is determined to hold onto his promises. This can be seen from the effort he has shown on his first few days in office.
References
Biography. “John McCain Biography.” 2009.
Bourque, Stephen. “Shock and Awe: Obama’s First Forty Days.” One Reality. 2009.
During the whole period of American history, its core was mostly centered on the problem of racism and of its pejorative attitude to the racial minorities and Afro-Americans in particular. That had a great impact on the social and political life of that time. It was proved by fact that American history did not witness the representatives of Afro-Americans taking the President’s office. Today’s America observes a dramatic increase in population diversity which is still growing. That fact has been unequally reacted by the Republicans and Democrats. That was revealed during the elections of the last year when the Americans witnessed the first Afro-American taking President office. Hence, a great number of questions appear concerning the involvement of the race aspect in the election campaigns of Republicans and Democrats. It is explained by many reasons.
It is necessary to mention that Republican ideology has always been deteriorative towards national minorities. Constant Republican policy focused mostly on the white people layer and that does not have any support among the Afro-American population. That is why the rise of the population diversity was negatively perceived by the party because of earlier negligence of Afro-Americans’ interests. Moreover, Republicans believe that the existence of diversity is the most dangerous obstacle on the way to liberty and integrity since it provokes many conflicts between people. They insist on the fact of necessity to include the idea of equality and cultural integrity. As it can be seen, the Republican ideology is rather contradicting in terms of racial aspects (Maynor, J. W. 2003). On the one hand, Republicans support freedom and justice and, on the other hand, their policy is mostly oriented to the rise of the white working class.
It is wrong to believe that positive Republican policy toward national minorities was strictly motivated by the political outlooks only. To my mind, the Republican’s idea to involve more Latinos and Afro-Americans in order to be competitive with Democrats was an outright manifestation of hidden racial goals using it as a decisive moment during elections. The feeble outcome of the election for Republicans was explained by the unwillingness of the party to accept the current demographical changes. Perhaps, McCain’s failure was due to the rapid rise of population diversity and, as a result, Republicans lost the people’s trust. (Peter Katel 2008, p. 579).
The Republican’s conservative ideas and restricted outlook hampered the successful result of the elections since their doctrine is in the past. Moreover, the growing new population stands beyond the working-class conservatism and is more interested in radical changes. On the other hand, in the interview about the force coming elections, the Institute Professor, Chomsky was persuaded in the victory of the Republican candidate, John McCain. He stated that McCain is “the down-to-earth ordinary American and it happens so that he is one the richest people in the Senate” (Ghoshroy, B. 2008).
In their turn, Democrats’ ideology is basically focused on the manifestation of social freedoms and class equality. It protects the rights of national minorities and recognizes the fact of cultural diversity. Currently, the Party is gaining popularity among the young people whose outlooks are mostly liberal.
In comparison with Republican Party, Democrats have a more beneficial position concerning the phenomenon of population diversity rise due to their liberal streams that are also more popular among the national minority groups. The situation became more obvious after Barack Obama’s success at the elections. The adaptation of Democrats to the extreme rise of a multiplicity of the population even promoted the democratic movements in the United States. The increase was the sign for people to discover that America is not the country where the leading positions belong to the European class and racial prejudices have just become old-fashioned. By means of this, Democrats’ major cores are not only to defend the minorities’ voters but also to induce the core class to realize the results of the democratic revolution. That idea is based on the fact that the recognition of the equality of rights was the trigger point among the voters. Viewing the point from the Democrats’ position, the members of the party took a beneficial position relying upon no the corresponding democratic processes during the election.
It is obvious that the rise of the diversity of the population was due to the recent elections, as well. Peter Katel (2008) expresses his strong belief concerning the tough connection between the race factor and the elections. He emphasizes that Barack Obama, being the representative of Democrats, did not express many expectations from the elections relying on racial prejudiced ideology which is based on the historical aggressive attitude to Afro-American people. However, the incumbent president consciously uses his race as a weapon against the Republican and conservative Democrats. In other words, Obama’s goal is to involve the post-racial policy which finds the support of both Parties. His recognition of the race factor only justifies the idea that does not acknowledge the absence of freedom of cultures and freedoms. However, the positive reaction of the white working-class on the newly elected president constitutes its readiness for alterations and acceptance of the rapid democratic changes.
The relation between two confronted races will decrease the outcome of the elections (Bartels, L., 2008). The President himself believes that, despite the acknowledged democracy, racial predetermination will affect the next elections. Owing to that, the problem of racism is on the agenda. It is also supported by the fact that the majority of the opponent voters represent the older generation whose stereotypes are conservative rather than liberal. Still, the Democrats’ strategy was rather persuasive and justified the idea of the democratic image of the country. Besides, the growth of political awareness among the younger generation has contributed to the victory of the Democrats’ candidate at the election.
After a detailed consideration of the problem leads to the conclusion the reaction to the rise of the population was rather contradicting. It is explained by the historical, social, and cultural factors and has both internal and external impacts. The former one is revealed historically, namely the race factor which is closely connected with population diversity and extremely affected the shift of American outlook on racial prejudices. The latter one means that the integration of minority groups was due to the similar current tendency taken in the East. Anyway, taking into consideration all factors, nowadays, the Democratic Party takes a more beneficial position than Republican representatives just because of the introduction of a powerful democratic wave all over the world. To improve the situation for the better, Republicans should think over a completely new policy that would not contradict the development of the current society.
Reference List
Bartels, L. (2008) Race in the Race. Web.
Barbara Ghoshroy (2008) Chomsky discusses the 2008 Election. The Tech. 128(52). Web.
Maynor, J. W. (2003). Republicanism in the modern world. Great Britain: Wiley-Blackwell.
Karel, P., (2008). Race and Politics. CQ Researcher. 18(25), 570-600.
The 2012 presidential election campaign by Mitt Romney aired an advertisement called “Doing Fine” that attacked President Obama by stating that the president has no idea about the economic condition of the country. This advertisement is a perfect example of a straightforward attack on President Obama and his ignorance of the economic realities of the country. As the political campaign for the 2016 elections begin, Americans await negative rhetorical speeches, rude personal attacks, and negative propaganda on television and in other media.
Political speeches in 2016 have dominated personal mockeries, name-calling, mudslinging, and backbiting. Ted Cruze, during his Iowa campaign openly talked of the baseless rumor that Ben Carson was dropping out of the presidential race and aired an advertisement mocking Marco Rubio called “just another pretty face”. In a Republican Party debate, Donald Trump, known for his abusive and vulgar language, called Amy Lindsey a liar, when she said she was a “middle class working girl”.
These examples of recent negative campaign in the US would make people wonder at the fall of the character of presidential candidates and their un-presidential language and conduct. Evidently, negative campaign entails a candidate engages in propaganda that attacks the opponent instead of propagating his peculiar positive attributes, in order to win the election. The obvious question that comes to one’s mind is, if negative campaigns are new to the Americans.
As much as one would like to believe that these are the new occurrence in American politics, but a look into the past election campaigns of respected presidents would show that their campaigns were no better. In reality, the presidential campaigns of slander and incivilities began with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams but became nastiest in the campaign of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson during the 1882 presidential campaign. Raising issues related to the opponent’s character, marital infidelity, tax evasion charges often raise character issues to the voters. Negative advertisement and propaganda dominate the American presidential campaigns throughout history.
Dirty personal attacks, foul language, and false speculations dominate the content of political speech, debate, and advertisements. Often such slander is defended as the “truth” and rhetoric like the “people deserve to know, ” and they seldom openly admit to such negative campaigning. Such negative campaigns are strategies employed by the candidates to lessen the popularity of the opponent.
Past Research
Political scientists believe that the political campaigns have become increasingly mean-spirited1. One of the main reasons for the rise may be the increasing success of negative campaign on candidate’s electoral rating. The questions that arise from the above discussion of the prevalence of negative campaign is, if the degree of incivility in election campaigns in America has reached a new low or were the foundation of such actions created in the historical annals of presidential campaigns? Are negative campaigns really becoming increasingly mean over time? When George Washington was elected the first American President, he was the unanimous choice, receiving the votes of all 132 electors.
In 1796, after eight years in Washington, America was its first exposure to a true campaign during the second Presidential election. Did a profound ideological difference degenerate into monstrous forms of mudslinging and backstabbing? In this essay, we study the old and the recent presidential campaigns and critically analyze the strategies, tactics, and propaganda used for negative campaigning to determine if it has changed over time.
Here ‘strategy’ refers to the decisions regarding particular issues and if they should be used as a mean of attacking the opponent2. “Tactics” refers to the responsibilities that are taken once a strategy is decided upon3. In other words, tactics is how the strategy is implemented in the campaign process to the maximum advantage of the candidate.
This paper answers the question if the negative election campaigns have always been a part of election campaigns in America since the late eighteenth century. The idea that the presidential campaigns have become increasingly negative is just a myth. In reality, it has always been negative and personal attacks have dominated election campaigns. This paper does a comparative analysis of the election campaigns to understand the degree of negativity in presidential election campaigns in America.
Research on negative campaigning in American politics has been extant, however, mostly they have concentrated on the effect of the campaigns45. However, this paper attempts to trace the evolution of negative campaigning since its inception and how they have changed (for better or for worse). The literature in this area is limited. Altschuler and Blumin6, and David Mark7 have contributed in this area of research. Previous research has suggested that politics has historically been rough8.
Susan Herbst suggests a decline in civility in American politics and states, “Most scholars and writers … bemoan a decline of civility in American politics and social life, [which] is a shame, since so many historians have documented phenomena to disprove this view, such as the horrendous dirty presidential campaigns of the past”9. Shea and Sproveri identifies the period when there was a rise in in the uncivil rhetoric in presidential campaign fit the phase when the critical realignment period10. Researchers are divided in their point of view regarding the evolution of negative campaign.
Some believe it has increased over time11, some believe that it has remained unchanged over time12, and while others believe that there are fluctuations in negative campaign in the US. This leaves a discrepancy in previous researches. This research will try to establish how the negative campaign has evolved over time in US presidential elections. Moreover, earlier researches that studied the evolution of negative campaign either worked with a limited period131415 or employed a tool that may not be wholly reliable, as they have used a tool that searches only books16.
However, an overall analysis in the area is missing. This paper analyzes the current and the past presidential campaigns, especially based on the newspaper reporting of negative campaigning and tries to understand the way it has changed.
Negative Campaigns – Past and Present
Advertisement
In the present 2016 presidential election primaries, rampant mudslinging have marked campaigns of various candidates like Trump, Cruze, Clinton, Sanders and so on. Nick Corasaniti from the New York Times broke down the messages of the advertisement campaigns of the 2016 primaries17. Given the definition of negative campaign, which tries to demean the opponent other than projecting oneself, the paper segregates the positive and negative advertisement campaigns. We analyze 51 advertisements – television or online video commercials.
The figure below (figure 1) shows that there are 27 out of 51 advertisements, which can be delineated as negative campaigns. This number points at the prevalence of negative campaign in the 2016 primary campaigns, which amounts to 51%. These advertisements have attacked the candidate’s opponents directly and have said something scandalous about them. This analysis does not talk of the newspaper articles that have printed the reports of the debates and the speeches that made direct attacks on other candidates.
Now we look at the strategy involved in these attacks. We find these negative advertisements can be divided into two categories. First are those advertisements that promote issues based attack on the opponent. Second, campaigns are designed to attack the opponent without any issue. It we look at the Ted Cruz advertisement attacking Hillary Clinton, it is a strategy to associate himself with the “working class” America by calling his opponents “elitist.” The strategy is clear.
He wants the voters to relate to his middle class background, a man who came up from humble working class family, unlike Clinton, who was a former first lady and Trump who was the father of an industrialist. On 8 March 2016, advertisements by Donald Trump’s camp accused Marco Rubio of corruption.
Apparently, there is no political message in the advertisement and uses only slander and accusation as a means to demean his Republican opponent. More than twenty-five percent of the advertisements reviewed in this section are direct personal attacks slandering the character of the opponent. Similar advertisements, which have no issue related message, attack the character of the opponents. Out of the 4 ads in the sample by Hillary Clinton, only one has a negative tone.
Figure 1: Negative ads in 2016 primaries based on candidate’s party affiliation.
Analyzing the advertisement contents based on the issue and tone of the message, we categorized them into seven groups – domestic policy, domestic performance, personal quality, foreign policy, international affairs, campaign appeals, and opponent’s character with no issue. The analysis demonstrates that most of the advertisement in 2016 primaries (38.5%) was attacks on the opponent with no political issue as a message.
The percentage of negative ads based on the issues the deals with are as follows: campaign appeal (1.9%), domestic policy (5.8%), international affairs (7.7%), and foreign policy (1.9%). The largest share of negative advertisements is that of attack on the opponents without any political issue (36.5%). Evidently, most of the advertisements attacked the opponent’s character rather than talking about real issues. For example, an advertisement calls Donald Trump “misogynist, ” “jerk, ” and “hippo.”
Further, Marco Rubio is called “corrupt” and “cronyism.” His immigration status has been questioned in more than one ad. Thus, the campaign ads for the primaries have shown a definite inclination towards a direct attack on the opponent and their character instead of concentrating on the relevant issues. Probably this is for this reason that many newspapers are calling this campaign the dirtiest of all. However, before we adjudge 2016 primary campaigns, it is imperative to understand if the campaigns have reached a new low in terms of attack ads or if they were the case earlier too.
Negative political advertising from 1952 to 2016 has been demonstrated in figure 2. An increase in the percentage of negative advertisements as a percentage of the total number of advertisements shows the country is becoming increasingly malicious during its election campaigns. In the decades of the fifties negative detriments have been below 40% of total ads. The earliest known negative ad was aired in 1952 that showed the republicans as keeping a double standard.
However, after 1960, it started growing and reached 40% in the 1964 campaign. Negative ads reached a height in 1988. However, a 1964 ad called “Daisy,” made by Lyndon B. Johnson’s camp to show that Barry Goldwater would begin a nuclear war if elected president. In 1972 and 1976, the use of negative ads declined during the Carter-Ford contest. However, it started increasing since 1980 during the campaign of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
During this campaign, Carter sponsored advertisements that showed Reagan as someone unprepared to assume the reigns of the country. These advertisements directly raised the question about Reagan’s judgment and insight, trying to undermine the latter. The maximum share of negative attack was in the 1988 campaign. During this campaign, the Republicans used the Willie Horton ad showed a convicted murdered who rapped and robbed a couple, used racism against Michael Dukakis.
In 1992, Ross Perot made a retort ad to attack Bill Clinton’s campaign about job growth with the aid of data from Arkansas. In a 1996 campaigns, the Republicans attacked the Democrats for being “too liberal.” In a 2000 advertisements portrayed Gore as a partisan. The 2004 Bush campaign branded John Kerry a “flip-flopper” due to his alleged indecisions. In 2008 advertisements, McCain directly declared that Obama was not prepared to lead the country and stood for higher taxes and more government spending. As a retort to this slander, Obama compared McCain to Bush and accused the former of proposing to cut Medicare. A 2012 ad showed Obama’s trade policy was to allow outsourcing to China.
Figure 2: Negative Advertisements in presidential elections from 1952 to April 2016.
Though in this section we have spoken only about the ads became famous (or infamous) because of their negative content and/or connotation. These ads are examples of direct attacks hurled on the opponent’s proposed policy or vision. For instance, ‘Daisy’ attacked Goldwater’s perceived policy of increased militarization. Similarly, the Horton ad helped the Republican candidate to play on the fear of rising black criminals in society of the white conservative America.
However, there has been a strategy behind each of these ads. Even though Horton and Daisy are considered one of the best effective negative ads, they were not purely character attacks on the opponents like the flip-flop ad made to mock Kerry. However, the 2016 ads show more negativity as they are more personal and direct attack on the opponent’s character, with no policy issue related to it. For instance, calling Trump a “jerk” or a “hippo” without any related issue actually is a blatant attack on his personality. Further, most ads by candidates that do not talk of any policy issue. Instead, they directly malign the opponent.
For instance, the immigration slander against Rubio shows that he will allow illegal immigrants from Mexico who will in turn take away all American jobs. Unemployment has been a sensitive issue since the 2008 financial slowdown and the issue of immigrants is important for two issues – immigrant labor and terrorism. Hence, painting a candidate close to the immigrants is almost equating him with the illegal immigrant workers and terrorists who come inside the country.
Further, in the 2012 campaign, 86% of Obama’s ads and 79% of Romney’s ads were negative. Whereas, if these are compared to the candidate scores in 2008, Obama has only 43.2% negative ads as compared to his opponent McCain who had 49.2% of such ads. In 2004, Bush aired the maximum number of negative ads (55.4%) as opposed to Kerry who aired only 2.7% of negative ads. So, why did President Obama need so many negative ads to increase his ranking in the polls when he had proposed some excellent policies in health care and economic rebound? The reason is the aim of political campaigns is to undermine the opponent in order to show oneself in positive light.
Thus, candidates use the government’s performances as a tool to attack them or raise a question regarding policy issues. For instance, the “Revolving Door” ad aired by Bush stated that the Dukakis, as a Governor, had vetoed against death penalty and mandatory sentence for drug dealers. Bush criticizes this policy in the “revolving door” advertisement: “As governor, Michael Dukakis vetoed mandatory sentences for drug dealers. He vetoed the death penalty. His revolving door prison policy gave weekend furloughs to first-degree murders not eligible for parole.”19 Researchers agree that negative ads are more likely to have policy related content20.
This is what they have understood from their studying of the past ad campaigns. However, in 2016, most of the negative ads are non-issue related, thus making them more accusatory and maligning. They are personal attacks on character of the opponent or their immigration status or their personal character. They are more direct, as these ads camouflage behind the garb of political issues.
Speech and Debate
Donald Trump has captured the media attention with his negative statements and rhetoric about most of his opponents, irrespective of their party. Trump has played almost all the dirty tricks mentioned in the history of campaigning. Presidential debates are the stage wherein the candidates can ask the most uncomfortable questions to their opponents. Thus, the performances of the candidates in the national debates televised are important as they show the real character, beyond the trick of the camera. It is common to hear the candidate attacking the incumbent bitterly over policy issues and even making character related accusations.
Even though political commentaries call such speeches “nastiest,” “dirtiest,” or “filthiest” but such accusations and slanders are common in the history of American election campaigns. In the 2000 campaign, McCain accused Bush of creating a push poll that indicted the former of being a liar and a cheat and implied that he may have fathered a colored child. In 2012 campaign, Obama accused Romney of being “reckless,” “absurd,” and “beneath the dignity of the presidency.” In the present 2016 campaign, Trump has accused Cruz of not being a natural born citizen of America, a fact that would disqualify the latter from the presidential race. Personal attacks and slandering the opponent’s character is a commonplace thing in political campaigns.
Strategy and Tactics
Negativity in speeches of political leaders to slander his/her opponent is common practice. Why are such negative campaigns used and why have they become so popular? First, it should be noted that these slander attacks are not a recent phenomenon. They have been practiced during election campaigns since Jefferson and Adams. In 1800, during the presidential campaign, both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson employed negative campaign tactics to undermine the credibility of his opponent.
Jefferson was slandered for being a person, if elected, would legalize prostitution and a newspaper blew this news out of proportion and turned Jefferson into the master who would legalize all kinds of crime. As retaliation, Jefferson used the help of a journalist to print a pamphlet that accused Adams of being a hypocrite and a hermaphrodite. In 1872 elections, a pamphlet circulated supporting Ulysses S. Grant accused Horace Greeley of corruption and despotism.
In 1884, Grover Cleveland was accused of having an illegitimate child. This tradition of slander and mudslinging has been a part of the American presidential campaigns since the time of our founding fathers. The negative campaigns have always been a means to undermine the credibility of the opponent.
Political debates are usually filled with accusations of the opponent’s shortcomings, or slander on the character based on misplaced rumors. The question that arises is why should they be adopted in the first pace. It must be understood that not all negative campaigns are bad. Political parties and candidate’s resort to negative campaigns because they work. In a way, they attract more attention to the policies than positive ads that shows the candidate’s visions and ideas.
However, it is through the negative ads that the true policies and strategies of the government are discussed. Criticism is important in political arena as this allows the scope for a meaningful debate. However, what is not desirable is what Adams and Jefferson did in the early days of the nation formation. Mudslinging is deplorable. However, it is still used by many politicians.
Negative campaigns are strategies. Strategies are the outlook of the campaign. For instance, Donald Trump. Like most Republicans, he is against gun control and therefore, he argues that there could have been fewer mortality in the Paris attack if a few of the people attacked by the terrorists had guns. In other words, they had the tool to defend themselves. In another case, Trump questions Cruz’s nationality status.
Cruz is probably one of the closest opponents that Trump wants to topple. In order to win the nomination of the party, he had to beat Cruz, along with others. Cruz posed a serious danger to his nomination race and in order to squash the opponent, he spread the rumor that Cruz may not be eligible to become the president, as he was not a natural born citizen of the country. This strategy was simply to undermine the credibility of the opponent, as he too knew that this slander could not be legally proved.
In another instance, Trump is called a misogynist by a campaign wherein the ad shows how he had verbally abused women and recently there were accusations against trump of sexual harassment. Such strong negative campaign against a candidate could ruin his prospects of being the president. Thus, negative ads are usually used as a strategy to undermine the philosophy, vision, or character of the opponent. They can be implied or overt. Such campaigns serve two purposes – first, weaken the opponent’s position, and second, show the voters what the candidate stands for. For instance, in “Daisy” Goldwater was projected as a candidate who, if elected, would start a nuclear race.
Therefore, this showed that Goldwater was not a desirable candidate for becoming the president. Moreover, this ad also forwarded Lyndon Johnson’s stand on foreign policy as anti-war. Similarly, the Willie Horton ad played on white people’s fear of colored anti-socials. This ad undermined Dukakis as being pro-African Americans and Bush, the Republican nominee, as a strong administrator who will keep the anti-socials behind bars. Similar message was sent by the ‘Revolving door’ campaign by Bush against Dukakis. Therefore, the negative ads always have a strategy and a tactics to undermine the opponent as well as speak of the candidate’s visions.
Conclusion
Mudslinging in election campaigns can be traced back to the founding ancestors of our nations. Therefore, it would be wrong to suggest that negative campaigning is a product of spread of mass media like television, social media, and so on. Political commentators often express their disgust about the negative campaigns and call it the worst, meanest, dirtiest campaign in the annals of history. However, research has shown that the campaign that has used the maximum negative advertisements was done in 1988.
This creates a discrepancy in popular belief and research findings. While discussing negative advertisements, it should be noted that they help to put forth a lot of information that otherwise would become just a statement. The main aim of a candidate is to win the election. In order to do so, he employs certain strategies to build his case in front of the voters. These strategies are his ideas, visions about the country, and policies. These policies and visions attract a group of people.
His opponent’s visions and policies may not be the same as his. Therefore, the tactics he uses is to undermine the policies of the opponent in order to make his sound better to the voters. In order to make himself stand out from the crowd, he has to create an inferior other, in front of whom he will gain precedence. Hence, he derides the policies of the opponent, points out the flaws in his opponent’s strategies, such that he will sound better to the voters.
This is what presidential campaigns are all about. The aim is to make the candidate look better than the rest of the contestants and garner maximum support. However, this explanation is not enough to support the mudslinging or personal attacks on the opponent’s character. The purpose is same that is to undermine the character of the opponent. However, one can say that such means are unnecessary. Nevertheless, such tactics have been employed by the founding fathers of the United States and have been practiced ever since. When the opponent is painted as an undesirable, the candidate immediately becomes the forerunner in the race.
This is what he intends to do when he derides the other of being malicious, corrupt, misogynist, or a flip-flop. Hence, we may conclude that negative advertisements are not a new phenomenon in the history of American presidential elections. Further, the campaigns are not becoming increasingly negative as previous election statistics shows that there has been a rise and fall in the share of negative advertisements in election campaigns. The campaigns have become exceedingly negative as candidates attack any loophole in their opponent’s policies and strategies. However, the increasing number of personal attacks, character maligning, and rumors in campaigns may turn the campaigns even nastier.
Bibliography
Altschuler, Glenn C., and Stuart M. Blumin. Rude Republic and their POlitics in the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Corasaniti, Nick. “The Ad Campaign,”New York Times, 2016. Web.
Herbst, Susan. Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Philadelphia, Pensylvania: Temple University Press, 2010.
Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, and Ivy Brown Rovner. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” The Journal of Politics 69, no.4 (2007): 1176–1209.
Mark, David. Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers , 2009.
Shea, Daniel M., and Alex Sproveri. “The Rise and Fall of Nasty Politics in America.” Political Science & Politics 45, no. 03 (2012): 416-421.
Sigelman, Lee, and Jr. Emmett H. Buell. “You Take the High Road and I’ll Take the Low Road? The Interplay of Attack Strategies and Tactics in Presidential Campaigns.” The Journal of Politics 65 no.2 (2003): 518-531.
West, Darrell M. Air Wars: Television Advertising and Social Media in Election Campaigns, 1952-2012. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2013.
Footnotes
Richard R. Lau, Lee Sigelman, and Ivy Brown Rovner, “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment ,” The Journal of Politics 69, no.4 (2007): 518.
Lee Sigelman and Jr. Emmett H. Buell, “You Take the High Road and I’ll Take the Low Road? The Interplay of Attack Strategies and Tactics in Presidential Campaigns,” The Journal of Politics 65 no.2 (2003): 518-9.
Sigelman and Buell, “You Take the High Road,” 519.
Sigelman and Buell, “You Take the High Road,” 519.
Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner, “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns,” 519.
Glenn C. Altschuler and Stuart M. Blumin, Rude Republic and their Politics in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 10-57.
David Mark, Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers , 2009), 71-83.
Sigelman and Buell, “You Take the High Road,” 520.
Susan Herbst, Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics (Philadelphia, Pensylvania: Temple University Press, 2010), 23-24.
Daniel M. Shea and Alex Sproveri, “The Rise and Fall of Nasty Politics in America,” Political Science & Politics 45, no. 03 (2012): 416.
Mark, Going Dirty, 32.
Herbst, Rude Democracy, 25.
Altschuler and Blumin, Rude Republic, 27.
Herbst, Rude Democracy, 27.
Mark, Going Dirty, 33.
Shea and Sproveri, “The Rise and Fall,” 417.
Nick Corasaniti, “The Ad Campaign,” New York Times. 2016. Web.
Darrell M. West, Air Wars: Television Advertising and Social Media in Election Campaigns, 1952-2012 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2013), 72.