The authors this week make a very compelling case that politicians attempt to engage particular segments of the electorate rather than the total voting body. Somewhat missing from the discussion is the idea of activating groups without diactivating others. It is likely that when one targets certain groups, other groups, especially those with conflicting interests, become diactivated -- either disengaged completely or now planning to vote against the candiate.
How is it possible to engage many, many groups (which is necessary for national elections especially) without losing too many votes from other groups in the process. President Obama is an interesting example. While I favored Obama to McCain and am therefore not as familiar with the latter's campaign, it appeared as though Obama pandered to nearly every segment of the population through various media steams. Arguably more so than anyone before him, Obama sought support from the LGBT community, yet also was very vocal about having faith-based initatives, and councils of religious leaders, etc. How is it possible to activate so many different groups, especially within such a public campaign, without drawing the attention of competing group interests?
Schier answers this question by alluding to the power of the internet to target various interests. Creating different types of ads for different types of websites would be one example. Certainly the internet lends itself to that type of tailored messaging, but because internet users are on average younger than the majority of the electorate, these customized campain ads may just fall upon deaf ears right alongside the endless ads from google and facebook.
Citizen Competence in American Democracy
Logan raises a good point that many of the authors have yet to address, but is obviously detrimental to democracy. In order for politics to be representative, we need many diverse groups to be involved in the electoral process. However, obviously campaigns that target specific subgroups do not appeal to the masses as a whole. Is there anything that the American electorate has in common that would allow for all groups to be actively engaged at the same time? Is it really the case that there is not one thing that we all care about enough to want to make it a priority? Politically and socially? Issues such as welfare and abortion obviously do not reach out to certain aspects of the population- but what about the economy? Even the youngest voters at the age of 18 have to be concerned about the American economy. Their futures more or less depend on it. Different campaigning vehicles would be a start, as Logan suggested, but is it really enough? The gap between our generation and even our parents generation, much less our grandparents, is extremely vast. My mom, for example, barely knows how to turn on her cellphone much less use it. If politicians could appeal to the population on the same level, they would be able to more successfully engage individuals because people are more powerful in groups than they are individually.
ReplyDeleteAn alternative suggestion would be to change the voting system itself, though I realize that is entirely unrealistic. Many people do not see voting as worthwhile and therefore do not spend the time it takes to register and actually go to the polls themselves. If we were to make voting more accessible, perhaps even over the internet or through an absentee ballot-type system, maybe more people would be inclined to vote. We need to bring voting to the people, instead of relying on the people to bring their votes to us.
We have to remember that many of the attempts to engage particular segments of the population are not done in the public eye for everyone to see. With so many private media sources today, there is reason to believe that people may not be aware that politicians are supporting multiple groups at one time. Also, I don't find it problematic to support groups that may have conflicting ideas. Isn't that what compromise is based on? To use your example with Obama, why should a politician have to support LGBT's or Christian organizations? Just because they clash on one issue does not mean they can't have both of their interests supported. Supporting lots of different groups is actually moving slightly toward mobilization and away from activation.
ReplyDeleteI think Logan has a point here about the activation of clashing groups by a single campaign. I think that Obama, in this respect, is the anomaly rather than the rule. Due to his personal charisma, he was able to activate many segments of society that do not normally see eye-to-eye, such as the LGBT community and Christian communities. An instructive point, though, is missed if this example is only limited to the election. Since being elected, President Obama has faced demands from each of the groups he had activated to vote for him - even the LGBT community. Due to the slow-moving nature of governance, however, he has only been able to deliver to a few of the groups that helped elect him.
ReplyDeleteThis example points to how activation strategies only serve to widen the chasm between being able to campaign effectively and being able to govern effectively. President Obama ran an extremely good campaign, but his administration's record at getting things done since then has not lived up to his ability to campaign.