In our discussion of the "equalizing" effects of the Internet today, several people brought up anecdotes of how they participated in politics over the web--crafting e-mails, e-signing a petition, commenting on a blog, donating to a campaign online, etc. Taking into account the Gladwell article in the New Yorker, we might worry that participating in politics has now become too easy, which lowers the value of this participation.
Way back when there were only hand-written or typewriter-typed letters that could only be sent by snail mail to Congressmen, one's effort to participate in politics was obvious and (from a participatory theorist approach) applauded. Today, these same sorts of letters can be written, sent, and received in a matter of minutes (or even seconds, if you're a quick typist!), which makes them effortless and arguably less worthy of our approval. Certainly the speed of this correspondence is preferable for those who are making legitimate contributions to our democratic society, but does it not also raise the bar for the types of political participation that actually matter?
Politicians undoubtedly receive innumerable e-mails each day that are basic copy-and-paste replicas produced by those in charge of listservs, sent out en masse by citizens who were particularly enraged or inspired by a political appeal. While these sorts of pre-written letters were around before the days of the Internet, the effort it took to write, seal, stamp and send these letters likely rendered them more impactful to the politicians who received them, and perhaps even demonstrated that many Americans took whatever issue to be of at least mild importance. This is not the case today, where a very small group of people can easily send a ridiculous number of e-mails to a politician very easily, under the guise of mass support. To the extent that politicians understand this possibility, the policy issue being discussed in these letters may or may not make their way onto the political agenda. In short, the online nature of these participatory acts--in that they are easy to carry out--have made these acts less valuable.
Unfortunately, the decreased value of these acts have not encouraged more people to participate, at least not the types of people we would hope. Rather, the more valuable participatory acts--those that require more effort, such as participating offline in a rally or protest, voting at an actual voting booth instead of taking an online poll, attending an honest-to-goodness community meeting in real time and space--are now too much for the ordinary American, when other, easier options are available. Before, when these were the only options available, even though many people still didn't participate, the effectiveness of participation was clearer. As Alan brought up in class, one must sort through the radical, uneducated comments on blogposts to get to the well-articulated ones, yet all of these comments have the same weight in terms of political participation. As a consequence of giving people more voice, we simply get more noise.
To break through this noise, one must commit higher acts of participation to get a single message across. The drastic increase in campaign spending is a good example--in order to compete, you have to work harder to raise and spend money. And just as is apparent with campaign spending, the same sorts of people are excluded from this participation. At least a few decades ago, if people wanted to get involved and have an impact, they knew how to do it. Now, despite the notion that the Internet has made involvement easier, this low-level involvement is less effective and therefore less valuable. Perhaps this decrease in value can help explain why the Internet has not had the "equalizing" effect one might have anticipated.
Citizen Competence in American Democracy
Monday, December 6, 2010
Not pessimistic, just reserved.
Anna's inclusion of the New Yorker article is extraordinarily relevant. Having read the article before, I kept having those same thoughts while reading Schlozman. The Internet is often seen in popular thinking as the great equalizer, but I think Schlozman convincingly shows that we should be hesitant to make such claims. I don't think Schlozman is as pessimistic as Marianne believes, however. The research is very tempered and reserved with its findings, and the researchers consistently make it clear to the reader that the Internet is still a young institution and that the true effects may not yet be discernible. Marianna contends that the Internet does in fact increase participation, and uses Facebook to make that point. I feel the researchers would agree with that point. Their data showed that among the young (Facebook users), political participation did increase via the Internet.
What causes the most attention is the lack of equalizing effects that the Internet has on SES. The authors argue that the Internet is a cheaper, easier, and more convenient access entry to politics than many traditional venues, yet level of participation on the Internet is positively related to SES, and therefore participation off the Internet. The Internet increases participation it seems, only among those who are already participating. An important finding of theirs that drives this point home is the difference between online and offline participation. The authors found that of those who participate online, 87% of them also participate offline, but of those who participate offline, only 57% of them also participate online. It seems that the Internet is some sort of threshold, or important designator of participation. Those who use the Internet, are more likely to participate in anything, regardless of venue.
How do we combat this inequality that is reflected in Internet use? The researchers hypothesize that as the older generations are replaced by younger generations, Internet use will become more equalized and the participation gaps won't be as evident. If we are going to reach those lower on SES measures, however, more action is needed besides waiting for people to get older. Teaching younger students about Internet use, possibly during social studies or government classes, and especially at lower SES school systems, could further facilitate the shrinking in participation gap. The authors make it clear that people don't participate because "[t]hey can’t; they don’t want to; and nobody asked" -- Let's ask.
What causes the most attention is the lack of equalizing effects that the Internet has on SES. The authors argue that the Internet is a cheaper, easier, and more convenient access entry to politics than many traditional venues, yet level of participation on the Internet is positively related to SES, and therefore participation off the Internet. The Internet increases participation it seems, only among those who are already participating. An important finding of theirs that drives this point home is the difference between online and offline participation. The authors found that of those who participate online, 87% of them also participate offline, but of those who participate offline, only 57% of them also participate online. It seems that the Internet is some sort of threshold, or important designator of participation. Those who use the Internet, are more likely to participate in anything, regardless of venue.
How do we combat this inequality that is reflected in Internet use? The researchers hypothesize that as the older generations are replaced by younger generations, Internet use will become more equalized and the participation gaps won't be as evident. If we are going to reach those lower on SES measures, however, more action is needed besides waiting for people to get older. Teaching younger students about Internet use, possibly during social studies or government classes, and especially at lower SES school systems, could further facilitate the shrinking in participation gap. The authors make it clear that people don't participate because "[t]hey can’t; they don’t want to; and nobody asked" -- Let's ask.
Reducing Participatory Inequality
Many of our readings, today and in the past, focus on reducing the inequalities of our political system. Whether through institutions such as local councils or mediums like the Internet, authors seem concerned about access to the government and political efficacy for lower income citizens. When we started class, we seemed to agree that while no one should be forced to become politically active, there should not be any barriers in place for those who wish to participate.
I think that as that semester has progressed, authors have disagreed about what constitutes a barrier to participation. Some believe it is only something that actually keeps people out (when money counts for influence), while others define it more broadly as anything that might influence one's political action. In other words, how much should the government do in order ensure an equal playing field for all? Regulate biased media? Increase the quality of civics education in schools? Require or deemphasize volunteering?
Perhaps in asking these questions, we can get distracted from the reality of our civic life. Many citizens simply do not have the time or desire to participate in political life regularly. It seems unrealistic to expect widespread action, as the social networking article suggests. While it is certainly beneficial if the Internet increases political awareness, those who wish to have an impact will have to engage in more "costly" (time, money, labor) ways of participation,
"The revolution will not be tweeted"
A short note in light of this discussion about the potential for the Internet to mobilize political participation. For some light reading on the subject, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a really interesting piece in the New Yorker, more anecdotal than Schlozman, Verba and Brady, but similarly expressing doubt in the ability of the Internet to revolutionize political participation and action.
Comparing contemporary forms of what might be considered social or political action to activism during the Civil Rights Era, Gladwell explains,
"Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires...In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro."
Comparing contemporary forms of what might be considered social or political action to activism during the Civil Rights Era, Gladwell explains,
"Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires...In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro."
Participation Regardless of Power
In the article by John Gaventa, he introduces the dimensions of power. First being, the power of the pluralists, mentioned by Robert Dahl and Nelson Polsby, where "A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would otherwise not do". In participation the key concept is the interest of the individual to engage themselves in the things they care about the most. Dahl categorizes the activists as homo politicus and the non-activists as homo civicus. These distinctions become important in the way citizens interact in politics. Those who are homo civicus prefer to use their time and money in more efficient ways. Gaventa becomes frustrated that people don't participate if there are no power constraints, then what is holding them back? Therefore, Gevanta believes that A has no power over B because B has different interests which makes the relationship between A and B irrelevant.
The second approach of power is that non-participation is attributed to "ignorance, indifference, and shiftlessness of the people". Here the main concept is that "whoever decides what the game is about also decides who gets in the game". This creates an exclusion of certain individuals meaning that they cannot participate unless they are recognized and invited to express their opinions. This brings forth the importance of power where power is relevant in order to participate and have a voice in politics. This cannot be the case because if these people are feeling excluded and neglected then they would voice their opinions and challenge these powers. Their interests would be heard and action would take place.
The third power is when "A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B's interests". This third power allows for the consideration of "social forces and historical patterns". The interest of people change and shift all the time so how do we get people to participate in a non-chaotic manner?
Power seems as though once established by the elites it is difficult to change it in favor of the powerless people. It seems as though the people who hold the most power will affect the political system regardless of the needs of citizens, according to Gaventa. The third power seems reasonable because if citizens feel that their interests are threatened then they will challenge the the opposing power to change policies that will benefit their interests. I do not feel that people are excluded or neglected but some people do not feel the urge to engage in politics because they have better things to do with their money and time. People who want to participate can participate regardless of how much power they possess.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Institutional reform
The Gaventa and Fung pieces discuss the implications of participatory empowerment in combatting chronic quiescence and political inequality. In terms of international relations, power is defined primarily by its first dimension, or the by the ability of A to get B to do something. Dahl and Polsby extend relative gains or losses in power to the political arena. Those who are kept from the game are homo civicus, while those who participate in the decision-making process are homo politicus.
The question that Gaventa seeks to answer is why do those who are effectively barred from participation, or politically silenced, refrain from standing up for their political rights?
In short, he argues that “internalization of roles or false consensus lead to the acceptance of the status quo”. The exertion of power goes even further to include a dictation of “necessities, possibilities, and strategies of challenge”.
I think Gaventa is arguing that power is institutionalized just like anything else. Once indoctrinated it is very difficult to change political thoughts and attitudes. It is the same theory for why a battered wife will rarely leave her abuser. Her needs, preferences and positive outlets have been manipulated to the point where the status quo is an accepted part of life.
The Fung piece highlights empowered participation in the case of a Chicago school that was driven by a common educational vision, and strategy implementation for reform. But this form of democratic participation is subject to the “institutional terrain”. While I personally believe marketization and new public management solutions were dismissed too quickly, Fung defines an ‘accountable autonomy’ that is observable in both his case studies. I really enjoyed Fung’s argument and support for accountable autonomy but I was trying to see how it would tie in to our class model of the citizen in terms of competency.
He frames his defense of competency (with increased participation) in terms of his Chicago case study so I first questioned the transferability of his findings, amidst a vast collection of “institutional terrains”. The skills required are “spatial, functional…and skill-specific”. The confidence is placed wholly in the aggregate and fails to recognize much competency at the individual level. To me it sounds like we could use a distinction between democratic, political, and reform participation because it would affect the robustness and subsequently, competence.
The question that Gaventa seeks to answer is why do those who are effectively barred from participation, or politically silenced, refrain from standing up for their political rights?
In short, he argues that “internalization of roles or false consensus lead to the acceptance of the status quo”. The exertion of power goes even further to include a dictation of “necessities, possibilities, and strategies of challenge”.
I think Gaventa is arguing that power is institutionalized just like anything else. Once indoctrinated it is very difficult to change political thoughts and attitudes. It is the same theory for why a battered wife will rarely leave her abuser. Her needs, preferences and positive outlets have been manipulated to the point where the status quo is an accepted part of life.
The Fung piece highlights empowered participation in the case of a Chicago school that was driven by a common educational vision, and strategy implementation for reform. But this form of democratic participation is subject to the “institutional terrain”. While I personally believe marketization and new public management solutions were dismissed too quickly, Fung defines an ‘accountable autonomy’ that is observable in both his case studies. I really enjoyed Fung’s argument and support for accountable autonomy but I was trying to see how it would tie in to our class model of the citizen in terms of competency.
He frames his defense of competency (with increased participation) in terms of his Chicago case study so I first questioned the transferability of his findings, amidst a vast collection of “institutional terrains”. The skills required are “spatial, functional…and skill-specific”. The confidence is placed wholly in the aggregate and fails to recognize much competency at the individual level. To me it sounds like we could use a distinction between democratic, political, and reform participation because it would affect the robustness and subsequently, competence.
The Digital Divide
The Schlozman, Verba, and Brady article ended with what I thought was an unexpected conclusion. Internet usage seems to be one of the most obvious mechanisms by which to increase political participation in America. However, the article concludes on a rather uninspiring note, as it does not seem to be the case that the internet will decrease the gap in participatory inequality with respect to politics. On the one hand, inequality in America is definitely too severe to be corrected through just one medium. It may take a variety of different factors over the course of many years to bridge such a vast gap in participatory equality - if ever. Yet, on the other hand, the authors seem to downplay the impact the internet has had upon the electorate. They tend to reference social networking sites constantly, such as Facebook; yet they underestimate the importance of accessibility to public officials like President Obama. Had it not been for the internet, who is to say that the election would have turned out in exactly the same way? My guess is that it would have been a different race entirely, as Obama targeted the young voting population through a medium that they were already extremely familiar with. He knew his target audience - and he exploited their strengths in order to win the election. The older generations, on the other hand, are essentially clueless when it comes to technology. While there are some exceptions, I know from personal experience that even our parents are less than competent when it comes to things like the internet, laptops, and (unfortunately) cell phones. Yet, they are more than willing to learn - so why is it that a younger generation that is extremely learned when it comes to technology is not so willing to learn about our own political environment? That difference is not accounted for in the article, but it is important to distinguish between the older and younger generations with respect to political motivation. Therefore, the article's conclusion may not be as surprisingly as I initially thought because we tend to use the internet for personal use only, which unfortunately does not include political material. If adults were more technologically inclined, I would assume they would use it for more practical purposes that would, in turn, increase political participation. For instance, many parents may find it difficult to get to the polls on time due to various external factors. If voting could somehow become available on-line, maybe parents who would not have had time to vote otherwise could have the opportunity to do so. Another problem voting on on-line could ameliorate is the number of students who did not receive their absentee ballots on time in the last election. Most of my friends who are not residents of Virginia did not, in fact, receive their absentee ballots on time (or in some cases at all). Thus, though they wanted to participate, they were not able to due to a problem that could be easily solved through the internet. It would be difficult to create a system that would be secure enough to ensure no one from the outside could tamper with the system - but in the long run, wouldn't it be worth it?
The article specifically refers to the ways in which the internet could reduce the barriers to political activity among all citizens, yet they their findings are more or less inconclusive. The internet does lower the cost of accessing information, as it is extremely abundant on the internet. However, a lot of that information is biased and may lead to more Free Rider problems as individuals start to pick up on certain viewpoints exposed in blogs, etc. Then there is the issue of the actual cost of the internet - which is obviously not cheap. Those in lower socio-economic households may not have a computer, much less the internet. Therefore, the internet has the potential to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Yet, even households that do have a computer and internet access may not be benefitting from it because they do not know how to use it properly. In this sense, there are many barriers to internet usage in general - the cost of a computer, the cost of internet, and the cost of learning how to use them simultaneously - that make older generations steer clear of the technological world. Yet, for the younger generations, does the internet act as a symbol of socio-economic status? Being able to afford a computer and the internet is one thing - being taught how to use them is entirely separate, as it is typically something that is taught in schools with enough money to have computers or laptops. Ultimately there are many advantages to the internet, but these advantages cannot be realized unless access to the internet is equal for all citizens. Therefore, the internet as a political component is inextricably tied to the economic divide. Without a solution to the latter, the former may never reach its full potential. But how?
Trust in the future
This week I focused on the article of Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba and Henry E. Brady because I have a different point of view. I think they are too pessimistic about the role of Internet. I really think that Internet -blogs and social networks- is very positive in helping citizens to participate in the democracy because I think about the future.
The article seems to suggest that political participation online isn't very serious -the authors give the example of the Obama's fan page on Facebook where the comments are not really interesting. Of course I agree with them, the improvement brought by Internet does not take place in Facebook, but I believe that Facebook can help us to participate in democracy. My example for that is the application that Facebook created for the 2010 elections. On the day of the elections, I guess that most of you noticed it, a special application appeared on the “home page” of the website where you could click to show to your friends that you have voted. I think this is a good example of how Facebook, without creating a very serious debate about the elections, can help the users to go to vote. It creats a “social control” so that you want to show the others that you vote, as every good citizen.
Of course I agree that this element only worked for the young who are the large majority of the users of Facebook. In their article, the authors explain that improvement of the political participation thanks to blogs and social networks can only be seen with the new voters, and that it doesn't affect the older population. I agree, but we have to think about the future: our generation that today tends to be influenced by blogs and social networks is going to be the next older generation, and I think that we will continue throughout our life to use Internet as a tool for political participation. Another argument that we can read in the article to explain that Internet is not a real tool to improve participation in democracy is that there is still a digital gap, and that many people don't have access to Internet. Moreover, it is not only a question of access, but also a question of time. Some manual workers for example won't have time to spend hours reading the news or using social networks. But here again, I think that we should have trust in the future: the access to Internet is going to be more and more easy as the technology improves. For example, a large majority of the Americans now have cell phone, and some estimations explain that in a few years, every cell phone will have an Internet connexion.
To conclude, I agree with the authors that Internet today seems to be a tool only for people who used to be active in democracy, and that the same inequalities remain. But I do believe that in the future the inequality of access will be reduced, and that the skills our generation learn today -using blogs and social networks as a way to participate- will remain in the future.
Tweets vs. Votes?
In the Schlozman, Verba and Brady reading, the scholars posit that while the internet has long been heralded as an equalizing and democratizing force within the political sphere, it in actuality will likely not change the preexisting trends regarding participatory inequalities in the US. However, one effect that they do assert as possibly changing the nature of political participation is the ability of social networking sites to attract a younger set of voters who otherwise would most likely not have participated. Scholzman et al. quite rightly approach this new type of “participation” with skepticism, stating that while encouraging political contact within the youthful set, it does not represent the same level of participation that working for a campaign or voting would embody. As I am in agreement with both of these statements, I find it troublesome that the younger “generation” often relies on online, surface level political tools to form and communicate their political perspectives; and as a result, I find myself wondering what this trend will inevitably lead to when this group begins to replace previously dominant segments of voters. Is it simply a factor of youth that encourages younger voters to use the internet and social networking site inordinately more than other participatory forms? Or it is a function of our “digital generation”, as scholars have referred to it, which makes us predisposed to rely on digitally mediated forms of discourse?
To demonstrate this concern Scholzman et al. ask questions such as; “when middle-aged, will those now in their twenties announce their divorces on social networking sites?”. This concern, though more personally related, speaks to a larger anxiety that the scholars (and frankly, myself) have about the direction that political participation may move in the coming years. Will our generation, so reliant on Facebook and Twitter, turn to these outlets for political information and eventually for political participation? And if so, what effects will this have on both the quality and distribution of political participation? Surely the quality of political participation on a social networking site lacks much in comparison to physical involvement with a campaign, and additionally, with the steady maintenance of a “digital divide” as discussed by Schlozman et al, it is clear that many segments of society will still be left out of the political sphere. While it is certainly possible that technological advances and policy changes may alleviate some of these concerns about access to what is now becoming an important political tool, currently there remains a vast chasm between the groups of society who can “afford” to participate, and those who cannot.
Overall, being a user of social networking sites myself, I simply cannot imagine the future of political participation lying within the confines of Facebook. This being said, I believe that for many voting segments, this may be exactly what happens. However, I do think that it is important to understand and analyze, as Schlozman et al. do, the notion that this new technology is not a “cure all” for political participatory flaws, and that in many ways it most likely cannot present a feasible solution for the inequality of participation in the US.
To demonstrate this concern Scholzman et al. ask questions such as; “when middle-aged, will those now in their twenties announce their divorces on social networking sites?”. This concern, though more personally related, speaks to a larger anxiety that the scholars (and frankly, myself) have about the direction that political participation may move in the coming years. Will our generation, so reliant on Facebook and Twitter, turn to these outlets for political information and eventually for political participation? And if so, what effects will this have on both the quality and distribution of political participation? Surely the quality of political participation on a social networking site lacks much in comparison to physical involvement with a campaign, and additionally, with the steady maintenance of a “digital divide” as discussed by Schlozman et al, it is clear that many segments of society will still be left out of the political sphere. While it is certainly possible that technological advances and policy changes may alleviate some of these concerns about access to what is now becoming an important political tool, currently there remains a vast chasm between the groups of society who can “afford” to participate, and those who cannot.
Overall, being a user of social networking sites myself, I simply cannot imagine the future of political participation lying within the confines of Facebook. This being said, I believe that for many voting segments, this may be exactly what happens. However, I do think that it is important to understand and analyze, as Schlozman et al. do, the notion that this new technology is not a “cure all” for political participatory flaws, and that in many ways it most likely cannot present a feasible solution for the inequality of participation in the US.
Friday, December 3, 2010
A Bottom-Up Political Movement? Probably Not.
This week’s readings seem largely to explore a bottom-up approach (or possibility) to political participation. Perhaps – and I could be wrong – the readings suggest that a viable solution to our problem of political inertia is to “give back” political power to the rank-and-file citizen, or at least some of the power over localized policy issues. By exploring the possibilities of an empowered citizenry who influence the political leadership at the municipal level (Fung), we may be able to extract broader implications and possibilities at higher levels of government. Certainly there is comfort in the fact that the parents in “Reform Strategy” were able to reshape the political construct as it relates to schools, neighborhood safety, and general quality of life issues. What I see as important in the Fung chapters is a similar yet milder form of revolutionary ideology that has shaped and reformed governments throughout history. I mean simply that a few citizens saw themselves and their children as jeopardized by the status quo, and their strongly ingrained common cause toward social reform drove a change in the designs of the political landscape. Seen in this way, it is very possible for the social needs and, more importantly, the demands of the citizen to compel the political actors…at least at the local level.
If citizens do have the agency to transform the power relations between themselves and their elected officials, why doesn’t this happen more often at the national level? Several reasons come to mind – large bureaucracies, distance from politicians, differences in depth and knowledge of information about policy issues and initiatives, political and social inertia, and a belief that everyone’s voice needs to be heard. All of these factors may be seen as problems stemming from the sheer size of our government. Certainly our government must strike a balance between what it would like to do and what it can do, but as of yet we have not found a viable connector between the various horizontal power strata. As the gap between the horizontal layers of our society increase, the voices from the bottom become more difficult to hear. It is honorable to desire that all voices be heard, but it is simply not feasible. Furthermore, attempting to bridge the gap between the disconnected citizenry and the plugged-in power-elite becomes all at once more difficult and burdensome as the issues become more complicated, more costly, and more important globally.
If citizens do have the agency to transform the power relations between themselves and their elected officials, why doesn’t this happen more often at the national level? Several reasons come to mind – large bureaucracies, distance from politicians, differences in depth and knowledge of information about policy issues and initiatives, political and social inertia, and a belief that everyone’s voice needs to be heard. All of these factors may be seen as problems stemming from the sheer size of our government. Certainly our government must strike a balance between what it would like to do and what it can do, but as of yet we have not found a viable connector between the various horizontal power strata. As the gap between the horizontal layers of our society increase, the voices from the bottom become more difficult to hear. It is honorable to desire that all voices be heard, but it is simply not feasible. Furthermore, attempting to bridge the gap between the disconnected citizenry and the plugged-in power-elite becomes all at once more difficult and burdensome as the issues become more complicated, more costly, and more important globally.
Dodge Bless America
After our discussion on responsible spending this week I started to think about the relationship between public and private commercial sectors. We came to the conclusion that programs that promote responsible spending rarely turn up. And more rarely do they originate from within the federal or state levels of government. The claim that citizens are identified as consumers, or agents to carry out macro and microeconomic goals is certainly very plausible, especially in times of uncertainty or recession. But I argue that the trend from within the government is slowly shifting to policy that promotes more responsible spending from the individual, while still embracing consumerism as one of many tools that work in conjunction toward economic recovery.
While we may not see the Ad Council air commercials that are targeted at responsible spending, there is very specific legislation and policy that actually inhibits some of the worst types of ‘irresponsible spending”. For example, federal legislation actually raised the threshold that financial institutions must meet to qualify someone for a mortgage. There is specific legislation that can be tied to this policy…plus federal monetary policy had previously been aimed at raising interest rates, which actually slows growth but ensures more stable and financially sound growth.
Commercial entities have been free-riders since the 1950s in terms of piggy-backing off the patriotic connotations associated with spending. We talked a lot about car companies in class so I wanted to give an example from another commercial sector. The only one I could think of was the Brett Farve Wrangler commercial that referenced American “Value” in a heap of denim…so I went back to the drawing board with cars.
The Dodge (Challenger) commercial of 2010 is the perfect example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezk0e1VL80o
In one very emotional minute, it conveys American strength and freedom through a throwback car model. One of the most recent comments on the video says “Dodge Bless America”. If the federal government has told us that spending is patriotic, private companies have figured out that it is profitable to tell us which brands and products are more patriotic. I’m not saying this clears all charges pending against the government with responsible spending. But the symbiotic relationship that private entities have picked up exacerbates the effects and makes it harder for a fresh look on responsible spending to become indoctrinated.
While we may not see the Ad Council air commercials that are targeted at responsible spending, there is very specific legislation and policy that actually inhibits some of the worst types of ‘irresponsible spending”. For example, federal legislation actually raised the threshold that financial institutions must meet to qualify someone for a mortgage. There is specific legislation that can be tied to this policy…plus federal monetary policy had previously been aimed at raising interest rates, which actually slows growth but ensures more stable and financially sound growth.
Commercial entities have been free-riders since the 1950s in terms of piggy-backing off the patriotic connotations associated with spending. We talked a lot about car companies in class so I wanted to give an example from another commercial sector. The only one I could think of was the Brett Farve Wrangler commercial that referenced American “Value” in a heap of denim…so I went back to the drawing board with cars.
The Dodge (Challenger) commercial of 2010 is the perfect example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezk0e1VL80o
In one very emotional minute, it conveys American strength and freedom through a throwback car model. One of the most recent comments on the video says “Dodge Bless America”. If the federal government has told us that spending is patriotic, private companies have figured out that it is profitable to tell us which brands and products are more patriotic. I’m not saying this clears all charges pending against the government with responsible spending. But the symbiotic relationship that private entities have picked up exacerbates the effects and makes it harder for a fresh look on responsible spending to become indoctrinated.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)