Showing posts with label electoral politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Corrupted By Politics

This stuff is old hat by now:
Sitting just feet from the courtroom table where he had once planned to make cases against military detainees, Air Force Col. Morris Davis instead took the witness stand to declare under oath that he felt undue pressure to hurry cases along so that the Bush administration could claim before political elections that the system was working.

[...]

Davis told Navy Capt. Keith J. Allred, who presided over the hearing, that top Pentagon officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, made it clear to him that charging some of the highest-profile detainees before elections this year could have "strategic political value."

We’ve seen this time and time again from the Bush Administration. Everything is political, nothing has a purpose or function beyond manipulating public opinion, winning elections and keeping the Republican Party in power.

“Oh, but Democrats do it to,” you may say. Not like this, I answer.

Not like this.

This is the inevitable result of handing the reins of government to a group of people whose entire philosophy is that government doesn’t work. They don’t know how to make it work. All they know how to do is manipulate public opinion so they can hold onto power.

You know, it’s a neat trick turning “government” into a dirty word and telling people to vote for you, year after year and decade after decade, so you can get rid of “government.” Like it’s a flea infestation or something. If you hate government so much, what the hell are you doing making a career out of it?

Lewis Black once said something to the effect of, “government isn’t a building somewhere. It’s people.”

At least, that’s how a former president--a Republican president--saw it, back in the day: “Of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Not anymore. Now it’s just of the privileged, by the cronies, for the sheeple.

Sunday, February 3, 2008

A Self-Perpetuating Myth

Yesterday’s New York Times carried an excellent story about exit polls and how they create self-perpetuating media myths:
[I]n five states, voters in Republican contests were asked their religious affiliation, and in four states they were asked how frequently they attended religious services. Voters in Democratic contests were asked those questions in only three states.

In four states, voters for Republican candidates were asked how much it mattered that a candidate shared their religious beliefs. Nowhere was that question put to voters for Democratic candidates.

And most notably, in every state voters in Republican caucuses and primaries were asked if they were born-again or evangelical Christians. Voters in Democratic caucuses and primaries were never asked.

The media has long perpetuated the myth that all Christians (especially Evangelicals) are Republican. They support this myth by presenting far-right people of faith like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed and Richard Land as the face of American Christianity. Even though American Christianity is far more diverse than that, and even though there are prominent and influential people on the religious Left -- Jim Wallis, Sister Joan Chittister and Rev. Welton Gaddy are three names that come to mind -- and even though these leaders represent millions of faithful, they are rarely invited to participate in news panels and their views are rarely offered to the public. It’s as if they don’t exist.

Of course they don’t exist. Because the media has already decided on the storyline: Christian = Republican. Why present any views that differ from that? Why, in an exit poll, would anyone want to ask Democrats if they are Christian? We all know that all Christians are Republican!

This is what I hate about exit polls and the Corporate Media. They aren’t interested in facts, or real news stories. They’re only interested in spreading their approved version of the facts. They only want to tell their approved version of the story. Who are you going to believe: ABC News, or your own lying eyes?

The National Election Pool conducts state and national exit polls. It consists of representatives from the corporate media: ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and The Associated Press. The exit poll questions asked, according to the article, are “what the polls’ “journalist clients” feel is most important for their articles.” In other words, the corporate media comes up with exit poll questions based on stereotypes they’ve created about the two political parties. And I think these stereotyped views are evident in the corporate media’s day-to-day political coverage, too.

I'm not the only one. Evangelical leaders have complained about this disparity in exit polling, but their complaints have fallen on deaf ears. Sorry, folks, the story has already been written:

In the meantime, the nine unhappy evangelical leaders fear a kind of vicious circle. Is “an outdated script” about religion and Republicans, in Mr. Dean’s phrase, unduly influencing the exit poll questions, the answers that are in turn influencing reporting and analysis by reporters, newscasters and pundits, which in turn influence future poll questions. Is campaign coverage and discussion being diverted from new developments among both evangelicals and Democrats?

Of course it is. And it’s not just the media’s assumption about Christians. It shows up in a whole variety of other places.

For example, the media always assumes that people in the military are Republican. But the military is as much a cross-section of America as any other profession. Trust me, there are plenty of Democrats in the military--especially since so many Republicans these days have better things to do than fight their precious Iraq War.

Exit polls will continue to paint a skewed portrait of American political views, as long as the media insists on weaving their pet narratives into the process.

And media coverage of American political life will continue to suck, as long as the corporate media only asks those questions to which it already has the answers.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Should Dems Say Bye-Bye To Bubba?

Salon.com has a controversial article up today about electoral demographics. Looking at the 2008 primary, author Thomas Schaller asks: has the Democratic Party finally given up on the white, male, working-class vote?
Start looking on milk cartons for Bubba because he has vanished, and not a moment too soon: The Democratic obsession with the down-home, blue-collar, white male voter, that heartbreaker who crossed the aisle to the Republicans many decades ago, may finally be coming to a merciful end.

The simplest explanation for Bubba's absence to date is that none of the 2008 Democratic presidential contenders provides an obvious home for his vote. [ ....] But the candidacy that most testifies to Bubba's declining stock is that of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

At first blush, Edwards, the Southern populist nonpareil, seems ideally situated to corner the market on working-class, white male voters. But aside from his homegrown accent, Edwards displays none of the affectations or semiotics that might once have signaled his intent to woo them. There are no Lamar Alexander-style flannel shirts; there is no sponsorship, à la Florida Sen. Bob Graham four years ago, of a NASCAR racing team. Instead, Edwards -- whose father worked in a textile mill -- hammers the issue of economic justice largely, if not completely, without overt cultural appeals. If he were a character from Southern literature, the former trial lawyer would be Atticus Finch of "To Kill a Mockingbird," not Henry Drummond of "Inherit the Wind." [...]

Schaller then points out that “Super-Bubba” Bill Clinton didn’t depend on white male voters either; in 1992, 22% those votes went to Ross Perot. In 1996, only 11% of white male voters supported Perot, but “Clinton's support improved by a meager 1 percent.”

The article generated a good deal of criticism in the comments, saying it was racist and relied on stereotypes not demographics. Others found it right-on; one commentor called it a “remarkably prescient piece.”

Either way, it struck a nerve, especially Schaller’s conclusion: to win, Dems need to forget about wooing Bubba.

So should Democrats really be all that worried about Bubba? After snubbing him during primary season, should they revert to form during the general election, and begin their familiar, unrequited quest for his affections? Republican pollster Whit Ayres has a clear preference. "I would dearly love for the Democrats to spend millions of dollars trying to persuade NASCAR fans to vote for the Democrats," Ayres chirped last summer. "They tend to be disproportionately southern, disproportionately white and disproportionately male, which pretty well defines the core of the Republican Party." In other words, it's a waste of time and resources for the Democrats to pursue them -- a classic sucker's bet.

It’s easy to see why Schaller’s article was viewed as inflammatory; no one likes to be pigeonholed because of the way they vote.

I’m seeing a more regional bias reflected in Schaller’s words. Schaller notes that white, male union workers still overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party--although he doesn’t mention that this is itself a declining demographic. But when Schaller refers to the “Bubba” vote it’s obvious he’s referring to the Southern vote. Maybe what Schaller is really saying is, Democrats have lost the white Southern vote, but should they care? I'd clarify this to say, have Democrats lost the rural white Southern vote, and should they care?

This is a hotly debated topic, ever since Howard Dean claimed he wanted Democrats to appeal to "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.” I’ve never understood why he got so much flak for that comment; it’s not like there aren’t guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks all over the place, especially outside big cities like Nashville.

I just spent a weekend at a tiny rural community on the Tennessee-Kentucky border, miles from the nearest Interstate. I saw more Confederate flags in 24 hours than in the whole past year. I saw a pick-up truck with a flag-pole-sized Confederate flag attached to the back, waving proudly as the truck whizzed down the highway. I saw one African American person all weekend, and he was sweeping the sidewalks. When asking a local about the town’s Mexican restaurant, my traveling companions said the response was: "I don't like no Mexicans and I don't like their damn food, neither." This fellow was the stereotypical Bubba; this town was the stereotypical rural Southern town.

Does anyone think Democrats can get this vote? Should they care if they can’t?