Putnum vs. Jones

Politics in today’s day and age have drastically changed, specifically the perception of political engagement among the citizens. Political engagement among the masses has shifted from one standpoint to a completely different realm. The realm in which I am referring to is technology. As described by Robert Putnam in the reading by Jeffery P. Jones, “Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture”, Putnum describes political engagement as physically devoting ones time to politics itself. Putnum argues that civic disengagement is due to mass culture such as television, the media and other forms of entertainment or technology. Jeffery P. Jones counters Putnum’s argument and believes that political engagement through the masses is conducted by staying involved in politics, specifically technology. Jones believes that political engagement can be carried out by simply filling out an online survey or reading headlines pertaining to politics. Through technology one can be involved in politics and one doesn’t necessarily have to physically devote time and energy to maintain engagement. Each point of view describes methods of the past and the present, but I believe that in today’s day and age both perspectives are essential to political outcomes. Since today’s society requires an abundance of modifications to adjust to the ever-changing environment, both perspectives from the above writers allow society more than one option and are therefore, essential to political engagement.

Technology has enhanced political engagement according to Jeffery P. Jones, but to what extent is engaging in politics? Jones believes that technology, mainly the internet opens up a vast amount of resources that generations past could not obtain. The internet opens endless amounts of resources to the political world, but does it mean that one is necessarily engaging in politics? According to Jones, by researching or simply involving oneself in politics through technology, one is engaging. I would have to agree that in today’s society the vast amounts of information being cast through technology enable citizens to engage in different forms. Technology for today’s generation is the main source of becoming involved in politics. The media during election year covers each candidates move around the clock. The internet contains updates and speeches, websites are devoted to political campaigns allowing viewers to catch up on political agendas that may not be available on basic television. Websites such as youtube.com allows for videos of political candidates to be available to anyone with access to the internet. One can stay involved in politics by keeping up with political agendas and visiting certain websites to learn more about each candidate. The vast amounts of resources due to technology allow people from across the nation to post political opinions and ideas for other citizens to see. Blog’s or tweeting allows one to post ideas and thoughts of not only their daily lives, but political opinions as well especially during election year. Personal opinions posted online whether there on official websites or a personal webpage promote public awareness or even political debates between writer and reader. Knowledge of politics is gained through education, but it also gained through interacting with others, conversing with one another through technology to build more knowledge. Technology enables this engagement, but through a non traditional point of view.

The traditional point of view is that of Robert Putnam, he believes that physically devoting yourself to politics is an act of engaging in politics. Putnam from my interpretation believes that to engage in politics one must go down to where the campaign office is held and physically devote ones time to the cause they believe in. As previously stated both methods of engaging in politics are essential to the ever changing mass culture. Physically devoting time in today’s day and age is still very effective as seen in the documentary film “Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore”. In the film Jeff Smith used the grass roots strategy to promote his political position and campaign. As seen in the film the physical presence of each person in Jeff Smith’s campaign had some effect to the outcome of his near election. The coffee meetings, the door to door conversing with every day citizen’s nearly won the seat in the House of Representatives for Smith. Physical conversations between one another still go a long way, simply because it reminds many the humanism and realism of candidates. By engaging in politics in the sense described by Putnum the humanism involved reminds one that technology still has a disadvantage. People still require a sense of interaction between one another whether it is a campaign volunteer or the candidate his/herself. Conversing with someone representing a candidate will further enhance political sway from one side to another. For example if an undecided is leaning towards one political party without conversing physically with someone representing a candidate, the technology will sway the position. But, if the same situation is presented and the undecided has conversed with a representative, then in my opinion the rhetoric involved between the two parties will ultimately mean more in the decision of the undecided. By conversing with someone more knowledge is gained because everyone interprets readings or education in a different manner.

Both interpretations of political engagement are essential because each complement one another. A person can be educated as much as possible through technology and the vast resources it has to offer, but that same person will not gain more knowledge without physically conversing with another about their position. Technology offers a strong base for political engagement by informing the masses of opinions and factual positions of candidates, but political engagement is enhanced with the physical conversing between two different parties. By physically being present around fellow peers and talking about ones political positions, knowledge is gained because each person interprets politics in a different way. Robert Putnum states that we are a society that is losing civil engagement in politics to the technological world, that “television and its electronic cousins are willing accomplices in citizen disengagement.” Personally Putnum is right is some regard, but what he doesn’t see is that technology allows vast interpretation of political issues which leads to infinite methods of becoming involved in politics. Personal web pages allow one to freely express political opinions and thus allow one to engage in politics. Opinions of citizens are available to other members of society to learn more about someone’s perspective or to simply argue against their position. Putnum is right to the extent that technology can move people away from physically getting involved in politics because access to political affiliations or positions is “one click away” and takes away the humanism involved in politics.

It all boils down to the simple fact that political engagement requires both positions of Putnum and Jones. Each opinion on political engagement and which position is right for society is what makes this country so unique. Each side is needed for political development because if technology alone shapes politics than society loses the sense of humanism. But if physical engagement rules all, then accessibility of political view, issues, and opinions will be limited. Our society needs those so devoted to a candidate’s position that they will physically go down to the campaign office and devote blood, sweat and tears to the campaign trail. Our society needs technology to allow easy access of facts, opinions and positions to enhance our knowledge of politics. Our society needs both positions because additional knowledge can be gained by conversing with one another, but knowledge cannot first be obtained without availability to resources. Mass culture is forever changing and when things change society tries to find the best available resources to adapt to the changing environment. In the present, both methods of political engagement are effective and therefore essential to politics because both in a sense compliment one another.

Political Advertising

A candidate is today’s day and age has to do what they can in order to reach out to the masses on their political standings. Standings such as political affiliation, health care, taxes or rights of marriage, all of which in order to achieve the ultimate of goal of being elected, must first convince the majority that he or she is right person to represent the constituents. How do political candidates get their name out so the people can listen? The answer to that question is political advertising. Political advertising is the fundamental reason why candidates get elected because in order to get elected by constituents, candidates must first gain name recognition. Name recognition has been around since the days that elections first took place. Political adversaries campaigning against one another had to convince the voters to not only vote, but vote for the name. The candidates spread the name through uses of parties, debates, charities, anything that would improve their image to the masses. The power of the name regardless whether the opponent is more capable than the other has had influence on our nation’s political development. Today’s day and age still represents the power of the name and how far a candidate can move forth because of masses recognizing the name.

In class we watched the documentary film directed by Nick Popper, “Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?” The film as seen in class represents all that can be achieved by name recognition. Russ Carnahan a name that goes back generations in politics in the state of Missouri is the power house candidate because of the name. Jeff Smith a candidate with no political past experience is running for a seat in the House of Representatives against the political royalty Carnahan. The documentary shows the struggles Jeff Smith must do in order to get his name recognized to the constituents. Smith who is representing the “average Joe” meaning; a man of correlation to the majority of the American people is running against political royalty that has already won three fourths of the battle. The battle is of course name recognition and when your mother already has a seat in the Senate along with continuous connections the campaigns seems to have already been taken care of. This is the representation of Russ Carnahan’s campaign, as seen in the film the man is represented as a good human being, but not a strong political candidate that can fulfill the needs of his constituents. Carnahan along with majority of those interviewed throughout the documentary believed that he would have no problem achieving the seat because the opposition did not have the strong political name to back the campaign. Jeff Smith a name of the “average Joe” must work tirelessly with an inexperienced staff in order to gain some sort of name recognition. His strategy for his campaign is known as a “grass root” strategy in which he will literally meet and greet anyone he can in order to achieve a vote. Smith’s grass root strategy y was broken down into different elements in order to get is name out to the people. The first was door to door, this was Jeff Smith literally going door to door meeting with average people in order figure out what the people want. The next was coffees, this surprised me I didn’t realized the social relevancy coffee had until this film and the success of Jeff Smith. Coffee provided social gatherings in which Jeff Smith would attend and he would talk about his political standings to people he knew which led to conversations with people whom he didn’t know. It was a rippling effect if you will; one drop creates a small ripple only leading to a much larger one. The third is kids, kids have always had the reflection of innocence and political candidates use them for a sense of relation to the people. From personal experience winning kids over usually means the parents are going to like you because kids are usually the reflection of what the parents truly love. The fourth is yard signs, like any other candidate yard signs are displayed anywhere and everywhere. This is a reflection who the person is particularly voting for, but it also to show the rest of society who this person is. Yard signs during campaigns cover towns always reminding those who haven’t voted yet who the candidates are. Each element of his campaign was all towards one goal and that goal was to achieve the name status to that of his opponent.

The campaign of Jeff Smith throughout the movie was motivated by hard work and a method that many Americans thought dead. The “grass root” campaign usually affiliates with candidates that have to work from the ground up, not one that past relatives has already built. The campaign involved more than Jeff Smith and Russ Carnahan, but the other candidates lacked the name or the drive, leaving Jeff Smith a strong chance in winning the seat in the House of Representatives. The campaign began to funnel close to election date and opposition’s strategies began to change. Russ Carnahan began to feel the heat and shifted to an attack campaign to belittle Smith. The attack campaign moved forth with sexual references and the lack of experience Jeff Smith has in politics. Furthermore Carnahan counter acted his attack campaign with an advocacy ad showing his children and how good of a father he is. The money for this ad which aired on television was provided by family wealth and family connections. The film talks about Russ Carnahan’s mothers influence on the campaign providing funds for television ads for an election to the House of Representatives. This does not usually happen since the election of the House does not reach this magnitude, but on this occasion circumstances were different. The name of the Carnahan’s could not be overthrown by an “average Joe” for the royalty line would be cut and the name would lose strength. This threat probably caused Mrs. Carnahan to give her son a little advantage because to this day most Americans receive their political information through television. The power the media has over this nation is apparent in every presidential election, it even is apparent for elections to the House. Shortly after the advocacy ad was ran the Election Day came. Jeff Smith won the election, but did not win the overall majority of voters and therefore lost the campaign.

The power of name recognition can reached back since our nation’s second president John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams our nation’s sixth president. Each state most likely has a powerhouse political royalty family such as the Carnahan’s in Missouri. The only question is, is that is it right for someone to be elected because of their name? Should a man be elected simply because of his wealth and connections or should a man be elected for the good of the future? These questions can only be answered by the voters and what they want for the future. They can only be answered by those who look past the power of name and look forward to the good of the future.

Political Speechwriting

Political spectrums have been used to divide different political dimensions since the foundation of our nation was formed. For example the longest of political spectrums to last is the left wing and the right wing. The left wing is usually associated with people of democratic points of view and the right wing is usually associated with peoples of a more conservative point of view. In regards to the term “axis” in the political world, the term is usually defined as a constraint of the political spectrum. The term has been used for many decades first really getting attention in World War II when the Axis of Powers was formed. The Axis of Powers consisted of Italy, Germany and Japan separating themselves from the Allies for an allegiance (axis) to one another. The term “axis” later became notably popular when George W. Bush used the term to label three nations as evil. The term just as it was used in WWII describes three nations on a different political dimension then let’s says the United States. The term was given on January 29, 2002 in George W. Bush’s State of the Union address, but more importantly is the term itself. How powerful can a term or catch phrase such as “axis of evil” be? Throughout history terms and slogans from presidents past to present have used such words to stir the ways of humankind. Words from such a powerful figure as the President of the United States can move a nation towards war. Or words from premiere artists cause children to dress or act a certain way. The power of language especially that of our nation’s commander and chief is incomprehensible. The use of slogans or catchphrases simplifies the intentions and enables people to comprehend or relate towards an issue of concern.

During the class period of political speechwriting, Dr. Anderson introduced some political viewing of former speechwriter David Frum to President George W. Bush. David Frum began his writing of President Bush’s State of the Union by reviewing Franklin D. Roosevelt’s’ “date which will live in infamy” speech. The two speeches have similarities not by association of two different axes (Axis of Power, Axis of Evil), but by two different terms or catch phrases. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “date which will live in infamy” is a catch phrase that will never be forgotten. Though the speech did not require the nation’s approval, because the nation was ready to go to war, it seems the speech written by David Frum for President Bush did need approval. The speech came at a time when the President was trying to persuade the nation to go at war with a country that supposedly obtained WMD’s and was harboring terrorist activities. In reality Bush had to convince the nation and by doing so he used the force of rhetoric and obtained his goal a year later. Language is so powerful that one word or phrase can move a nation en route for triumph or failure.

The phrase “axis of evil” stirred the nation; soon the phrase could be seen all over the news. The Acronym Institute wrote an article describing the interviews taken by various news stations. Fox News Sunday on February 3, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice argued: "You don't get anywhere by pulling punches about the nature of regimes like the Iraqi regime, or the North Korean regime. It's not as if anybody really believes that these are good regimes that are just engaging in a little bad policy. We've seen, in this war on terrorism, that speaking plainly is the way to rally people, not the other way round." I found this quote to be very interesting simply because of the phrase “speaking plainly”, which is implying more than just the words themselves. The phrase is describing to the nation how keeping words direct and to the course has a more effective approach. The same can be said about the term “axis of evil” the term alone represents three different nations forming a conspiracy of terroristic attacks and possessing WMD’s. It was easier to describe these nations with three words as opposed to a long sentence or paragraph. This phrase created a rippling effect throughout the nation simplifying the intentions and motives of the President. The phrase originally stated, “axis of hatred” but Bush himself made the change to “evil” putting an emphasis on intentions of his speech.

The phrase grew so popular that comedy tours were named after it, SNL (Saturday Night Live) performed a political satire poking at the context of the phrase. Not only did mainstream pop culture grasp the phrase, but the political world did as well. News stations just as the one’s watched in class represent various people stating their two cents on the phrase. The phrase gathered so much attention that it seemed the intention of President Bush’s State of the Union was overshadowed. People were trying to simplify the term or trying to oppose it because of the graphic term “evil”. Nevertheless, the phrase captured the American people and the intentions of the word and speech came forth, when troops were sent to invade Iraq about a year later. The point remains, the word created a stir just as many terms given by major political figures had before and after President Bush.

An influential example of how powerful political terms or catchphrases can be represented in the late campaign of our new President Barrack Obama. The term or slogan “yes we can” was his main oblige for his 2008 campaign. The term “yes we can” symbolizes more than just meets the eye, just as the term “axis of evil”. The catchphrase of Obama’s 2008 campaign took the campaign to new heights creating a sense of urgency for the opposing republicans. The phrase in the text itself includes the word “we” meaning the nation as a whole can accomplish all that needs to be done with the help of Barrack Obama. The phrase created such a force that mainstream pop culture began marketing the phrase with eager effortlessness. Mainstream popular culture began consuming the slogan as if it was the new “in” style. The phrase not only expressed more than to just the demographics of politics, but to minorities as well. The speech that introduced the slogan “yes we can” was given on the night of the primary in Nashua, New Hampshire. Shortly after just as the phrase “axis of evil” the slogan “yes we can” was debated amongst the public. The catchphrase of Obama’s 2008 campaign soared, just now looking up the speech on the website youtube.com; the speech had approximately 3,190,860 hits. The popularity of the speech and catchphrase is unprecedented allowing the former Senator of Illinois to become our nations 44^th President.

Though both Presidents have conflicting political views and are separated on the political spectrum, they do have the power of words to keep them associated. President George W. Bush like many President’s before him used phrases such as “axis of evil” to describe regimes of a harmful nature. The phrase was taken by society used as debate topics and moving the nation towards a common interest in invading Iraq. The use of this phrase put nations under surveillance of allied nations against there tyrannical ways. The power of this phrase along with others such as President Obama’s “yes we can” symbolizes the vigor of political figures. These phrases continuously effect our nation decade after decade allowing political leaders to shift the public in the direction in which they need. Most phrases are for the good of the people and reflect the intentions of the masses, but some are used in the form of rhetoric to move the masses on an agenda that is not of the interest of the people. The power of phrases is evident through Presidents past and present, but the true meaning behind them will always be a debate among the people.

"Bush 'Axis of Evil' Speech Seeks to Define War Against Terrorism, Proliferation". The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. 09-30-09 .