The Plight of Pathos

In chapter three and four of Schudson’s The Good Citizen, the author documents the changes in political participation from the Civil War to the New Deal era. In class we talked about the rising trend of pathos in politics; however, the Schudson’s analysis of party politics in the post-Reconstruction era seem to suggest that pathos has traditionally been a large part of citizen voting. The large parades, incessant and repetitive political chants, barbeques, drinking and pole-raising all seem eerily similar to the modern day political rally. Party politics and Election Day may no longer be about booze and the direct exchange of money; however, it certainly still achieves a similar illogical effect. Party politics have become a glamour fest. The star-studded conventions, campaign concerts, and other celebrity cameos have pulled Americans away from the actual issues, much to the same effect as the feverish elections in the late 19^th century.

The assigned Schudson passage begins with an analysis of the Douglass-Lincoln debates. He states the debates were more muck-raking events for the sake of public exposure than anything else. With an audience that could hardly hear the speakers, nor comprehend their banter even if they could hear, the debates were largely entertainment. Furthermore, coverage and documentation of these debates varied depending on which party controlled the newspaper. The debates looked entirely different depending on which newspaper you were reading.

Flash forward to the Kennedy-Nixon debates in the 1960 election. Once again, pathos out-muscled ethos. For example, those that listened to the debate on the radio polled that Nixon had won the debate. However; those that watched the debate on TV ruled that the charming, young, and good-looking Kennedy had been victorious. If the dialogue and issues were all that mattered, why was there such a discrepancy in the perceived winner? With practically every American owning a television today, the networks actually try to control pathos with different camera techniques during debates. Aside from technological advances, has the modern debate really evolved much from the public debates of the mid-19^th century?

A question for thought: Who is at fault for supporting a system based on emotion? Is it the fault of the political parties? Media? The masses?