Universal Mobilization w/ Material Interests Seems Reasonable

Professor Claibourn and Martin's piece argues that campaign ads and issues which focus on symbolic interests can selectively mobilize certain sectors of the population, whereas ads pertaining to material interests tend to mobilize the population across barriers of group differences. I find these results compelling and justifiable based on some of the topics we have already discussed in class. I had mentioned before in class in respect to Lodge's articles "The Responsive Voter," that maybe viewers of political campaign ads have difficulty remembering the specifiers in the advertisements because campaign ads tend to be more visionary and strategic rather than illustrate practical and materialistic goals. I assume that it is easier to grasp immediate and material benefits rather than long-term and more idealistic goals, and I find that Professor Claibourn's results may be somewhat similar - ads depicting material interests seem to engage the public at large unlike the ads that focused on symbolic interests.

Gaines' article from a few weeks ago also comes to mind in which it is argued that people can be provided with the same information but interpret the facts differently. The authors had found that with the same factual information on the number of casualties in Iraq, depending on one's partisanship, people interpreted the numbers to reinforce their opinion on whether the war should be supported or not. Similarly, when it comes to material interests highlighted in campaign ads, people interpret the facts to accommodate to their personal circumstances and interpret their own situations in the way they wish to, as well. Maybe this can also support the likeliness that material appeals spark interest in many groups of people rather than selectively mobilizing only a few.

I find it more difficult to back the results of symbolic interests with previous findings. But I assume that symbolic interests tend to be more emotion-driven, and these particular issues may simply not spark the same fears, anger, or sympathy in every group of individuals.