Newt Gingrich can't be elected President!

Could Newt Gingrich win the U.S. Presidency? No. The best looking presidential candidate always seems to be elected. The lady who reads the newspaper at Starbucks each morning vetted my theory of the best looking president; Truman vs. Dewey in 1948 and Ford vs. Carter in 1976 are the only exceptions over the last 60 years that we could identify... In the era of TV, multimedia, social media, and the web, it seems difficult for an ordinary looking person to win the U.S. Presidency. Without getting into a political debate with you, I wanted to point out that the most "photogenic" presidential candidate, who can generally articulate a vision and discuss the relevant issues, seems to win. The choice for the VP running mate doesn't seem to add much to the ticket, but an unattractive or inexperienced candidate possibly could detract from ticket. Of course, Wagner’s Law of the Best Looking President doesn't mean that the election doesn't matter; I'm just saying that a better looking incumbent has, historically speaking, nearly always has been invincible. Perhaps Obama has already won in 2012?

Broadcast News Media Research Indicated Bias for Senator Barack Obama

A broadcast news media study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University found that coverage during the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama was 65% positive, but coverage of Senator John McCain was only 36% positive.

According to the study by researchers at George Mason University, there was a documented media bias for Obama and against McCain. Did the bias influence voters? I don't know. Was the study relevant news that was largely ignored. I don't know.

The link below has the details. Judge for yourselves...

Source: http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_10_30_08.htm

Additional References: Pew Charitable Trust Study of Print Media: "The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended."

Source: http://journalism.org/node/13307

References

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_10_30_08.htm

Pew Charitable Trusts Excellence in Journalism, http://journalism.org/node/13307

Spoiler Candidacies Revisited

H. Ross Perot, a successful businessman, mounted an interesting but unsuccessful bid for the Presidency of the United States in 1992 under the banner of the Reform Party. Perot garnered 19 percent of the popular vote but failed to carry the electoral votes from any state. The influence of the Reform party is atypical among American political parties though, with most having far less popular support.

Third parties or minority parties have historically been one of four types (Janda, Berry, & Goldman, 1995): (1) Bolter parties splitting from the Democratic or Republican parties; (2) Farmer-labor parties representing working class individuals who feel they are not getting their fair share; (3) Ideological protest parties criticizing the established system; (4) Single issue parties seeking to promote an issue rather than new government philosophy.

Most American voters are loyal to either the Republican or Democratic parties, making it virtually impossible for an third, minority party candidate to win. Notwithstanding, third party movements such as Perot’s Reform party provide a means of expression for potential voters who are disenchanted with either major party. Moreover, expression of alternate platforms and agenda for government policymaking is what third-parties do best.

The Reform Party, which was essentially an ideological protest party, affected the platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties by drawing attention to important, overlooked issues such as the need for a balanced budget and ending government waste. In the future, third party platforms such as the Reform party will continue to have populist influence on the two major parties. Other important third-party challenges can be found in the Constitution, Libertarian, and Green parties.

Reference

Janda, K., Berry, J.M., & Goldman, J. (1995) The challenge of democracy: Government in America, (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Improving Government Responsiveness to Public Opinion

In the majoritarian model of democracy, the government is made responsive to public opinion through political parties according to the model of responsible party government by addressing the following issues (Janda, Berry, & Goldman, 1995): (1) Parties should present clear and coherent programs to voters; (2) Voters should choose candidates on the basis of party programs; (3) The winning party should carry out its program in office; (4) Voters should hold the governing party responsible at the next election for executing its program.

Examining how well an American political party meets the above tests of responsible party government yields a mixed review. When candidates are running for office, programs are presented to voters in a clear fashion. However, voters often choose the candidate based on some personal characteristics instead of solely upon the programs supported by that candidate’s party. When elected to power, American political parties do tend to shape government policy according to their party platforms.

What party should be held accountable as being in power if the Democratic Party controls the House of Representatives, the Republican Party controls the Senate and a Republican President sits in the Oval Office? Some evidence suggests that many voters purposely split the ticket between the presidential, congressional and senatorial candidates, so is majoritarianism still served in such as case? No, the American model of democracy is more pluralist than majoritarian, because it does not completely meet the tests of responsible party government.

Several reforms could be enacted to bring America’s two political parties closer to responsible party government. First, at the present time, campaigns are highly-personalized to the candidates being elected and conducted outside the control of party organizations. To improve the majoritarian nature of American democracy, the connections between candidates and voters needs to be strengthened during the process of campaigns and elections. Second, party identification has weakened over the years. A strengthening of the value and importance of party membership between elections could improve the link between voters, parties, and candidates. Third, the tie between candidate and party is loosely defined at the national level and almost non-existent for the Senate and House elections. Candidates for national office could relate their positions to national party platforms more clearly. Finally, national party leadership could take a more active role in helping local candidates who are affiliated with the party get elected.

These are but a few of the ways that the responsible party model of government and the majoritarian nature of our democracy could be improved.

Reference

Janda, K., Berry, J.M., & Goldman, J. (1995) The challenge of democracy: Government in America, (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

American Public Opinion and Government Stability

Public opinion both shapes and is shaped by American government policy. Five characteristics of public opinion help explain how this symbiosis contributes to stability (Janda, Berry, & Goldman, 1995): (1) Public opinion about policy can change over time; (2) Public opinion defines the contours of acceptable public policy; (3) Public opinion embodies inaccurate views because citizens are willing to provide opinions to pollsters on unfamiliar subjects; (4) Government tends to respond to public opinion; (5) Government policy does not always immediately reflect public opinion. In sum, while government does not always do exactly what the population says it wants, it does listen to public opinion and adjusts policymaking efforts accordingly over time, when practicable.

Reference

Janda, K., Berry, J.M., & Goldman, J. (1995) The challenge of democracy: Government in America, (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Factors of Political Opinion Formation

Ideological orientation is an important factor in forming political opinions, but how do ordinary citizens, who have not developed a consistent set of political attitudes and beliefs, form opinions? Beyond ideological orientation, other factors help shape public opinion: an individual’s own self-interest, a comprehended set of political information, a series of opinion schemas, and the influence of political leadership (Janda, Berry, & Goldman, 1995).

When individuals might benefit or suffer from a particular government policy, they generally respond in terms of their own best interest, unless they feel that acting in one’s self-interest is immoral. Many citizens have no clear opinions on issues that do not affect them personally.

When individuals lack understanding on a political issue, they tend to respond with an opinion based on the latest information received, which can cause polls to fluctuate. Political information obtained through the mass media and filtered through an individual’s political socialization can produce a wide variety of opinions. However, lack of political information does not inhibit most individuals from expressing an opinion.

Various facts, images and perceptions can be mapped into what is called an opinion schema, which can be used as a proxy for a formal political ideology and serve as a guide for forming an opinion on a specific issue, while the opinion is still influenced by an overarching political ideology. These schemas are a means of understanding the images, connections, and values that people attribute to a subject.

Finally, in the absence of specific information, citizens can be swayed for or against a government policy by highly influential political leaders. Public opinion is often more often shaped by the personalities in government via the mass media than a force that actually shapes the government.

Reference

Janda, K., Berry, J.M., & Goldman, J. (1995) The challenge of democracy: Government in America, (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

American Mass Media Bias

News reporting is exception reporting. What is different from what happened yesterday or from what is understood to be the status quo is frequently reported as news. MBAs and managers responsible for media and public relations should be cognizant of these natural biases when launching publicity campaigns and handling public relations crises. Consider how business news is reported and synthesized on the broad canvas of political news reporting.

Strong Liberal Bias in American Media

Perhaps you have heard the charge that American mass media exhibit a strong liberal bias. Whether you believe in liberal media prejudice or not, the significant question is whether the editorial view of the media should necessarily parallel the ideology of the American people. The mass media is comprised of working journalists and editorial staff, many of whom serving as gatekeepers determining what news stories get coverage and how they are covered. These groups tend to hold one another in check to some degree but because working journalists often have liberal ideological views, the essential nature of the reporting will be to promote equality over order. Thus, the ideology of the American people, who tend to be more conservative, is often not reflected in the reporting. It is not necessary for the American mass media to reflect precisely the views of the American people, but the mass media has a responsibility to report the news in a balanced fashion. For example, when assailing a conservative ideologue for signing a lucrative book deal, the mass media should also assail a liberal ideologue for the same, etc.

The charge that practicing journalists tend to hold liberal ideological viewpoints is true, but does this alone make the reporting by the mass media reflect a strong liberal bias? Editorial staff members tend to hold conservative ideological viewpoints. Research indicates that mass media outlets are more critical of incumbents and less critical of challengers (Janda, Berry, & Goldman, 1995). Therefore, yes, when covering news stories relating to a relatively conservative national administration the media is liberal. Moreover, when covering a liberal national administration, the media is probably perceived as being more conservative. Hence, Janda, Berry, and Goldman (1995) report that virtually no long-term ideological or partisan bias exists in media coverage. A reasonable conclusion is that the very nature of news reporting encourages the journalist to seek stories that do not conform to the status quo. By its very nature, news is different; it is exception reporting. This phenomenon might explain why during some years blatant liberal treatment of specific news stories to appeal to the audience.

Distortion or Underreporting of Global News

There exists a distinct possibility that American journalists severely distort or underreport global and international news; delivering eyes and ears to advertisers may be an underlying cause. To answer the charge that the American mass media skew or ignore international news, one must look to the private ownership of media outlets. Print and broadcast media are privately owned and therefore must generate a profit to survive in the long-term. Media outlets are dependent upon advertising revenues, not government subsidies, to cover expenses and generate a profit. Advertising rates are tied to the audience size. If one media outlet gears its news coverage for mass audience appeal, then other outlets must also meet this threat or risk losing their audience. Thus, to a large degree, the desire of the audience will dictate the content provided. The problem may not be with distortion or underreporting of international news, but the shear lack of demand for international content.

The balance of coverage of international news and events could be improved as follows:

1. Feature an international news segment;
2. Feature a lead international story in each broadcast at the national and local level;
3. The US FCC could regulate that approximately 20% of news coverage should focus on events outside the country;
4. The gatekeepers in media outlets could voluntarily agree to increase the amount of international news and documentary coverage;
5. Newspapers and Internet/Web sources of news could increase their coverage of international stories without cooperation from the traditional print media, and
6. Refer to terrorists and terrorist organizations as anonymous perpetrators of the events to avoid developing terror brands and feeding the terrorists' psychopathic egos.
   

Reference

Janda, K., Berry, J.M., & Goldman, J. (1995) The challenge of democracy: Government in America, (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Government Policy Toward Big Business: Interest Group Lobbying Tactics

In order to influence government policy about big business, interest groups often develop an overarching policy position and a strategy for promoting it. For example, protecting the environment and reducing reliance on foreign oil have been both frequent and recent policy positions that affect business strategy. Promoting a specify policy objective in the public arena may mean following the issue for years to come from the development of laws in the legislative branch into the agency’s implementation of the law in the executive branch. The four ways to promote an issue discussed by the text are (1) lobbying policymakers with personal contact (i.e., direct lobbying); (2) members of an interest group contact policymakers (i.e., grassroots lobbying); (3) public relations to gain public support (i.e., information campaigns); (4) joining forces and resources with other interest groups (i.e., coalition building).

Each of the above lobbying tactics has characteristics that can be applied by various special interest groups. First, direct lobbying most often consists of making personal contact with policymakers to provide them with updated information that supports the interest group’s position. Direct lobbying may also take the form of testifying before a legislative body, during litigation or filing formal complaints with a responsible administrative agency. Second, grassroots lobbying rallies the support of the interest group’s members and supporters from outside the organization to engage in guerilla lobbying such as letter writing, telephoning, FAXs, email, and possibly political protest events. Third, information campaigns are aimed at the public at large to educate, gain support for the interest group at all levels and indirectly to influence policymakers. Finally, coalition building involves aggregating the efforts and resources of multiple interest groups to apply maximum pressure for a common cause. Each of the lobbying tactics is manifested as strategies by the special interest group because they employ planning and concerted effort to accomplish the goal. Strategic and marketing planning processes within businesses need to recognize the externalities created by these special interest groups and respond accordingly.

Reference

Janda, K., Berry, J.M., & Goldman, J. (1995) The challenge of democracy: Government in America, (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Business Regulation and Political Ideology

Consider freedom, order, and equality; each is a diametrically opposed goal in political ideology and free enterprise. Freedom could be understood as an absence of constraints on behavior. Order is adherence to safeguards that preserve life, protect property, and maintain patterns of society. Equality might both refer to equality of opportunity and outcome simultaneously in social and political areas. For example, to increase freedom, government may decrease order and decrease equality. Still, to increase order, government may decrease freedom and decrease equality. Moreover, to increase equality, government may decrease order and decrease freedom.

Libertarianism, Populism, Liberalism, and Conservatism each have differing views on the government’s role and purpose in restraining freedoms to promote order and equality, including the degree to which those freedoms can be traded for order or equality (Janda, Berry, and Goldman, 1995). Business related freedoms relative to individuals are likewise restricted to promote order in the markets or equality of opportunities in free enterprise to other individuals. Libertarians oppose government policies that interfere with personal freedoms to promote equality and order, even for business entities. Populists favor government policies that promote social equality while also favoring policies that promote order, which is manifested in different types of business regulation. Liberals favor government policies that promote social equality such as affirmative action while they typically oppose legislation, judicial opinion, or executive action that restrains individual liberties; businesses are likewise asked / regulated to implement those government policies in what amounts to unfunded mandates. Conservatives oppose government policies that interfere with free market forces for purposes of promoting equality but tend to favor government policies that promote social order and help business entities.

The traditional dilemma in American government has been to balance freedom and order while the modern day dilemma is to balance freedom and equality. When the government acts to increase order or equality within its jurisdiction, freedoms to engage in business enterprises are restrained accordingly. There are no absolutes with regard to the positions that holders of these ideologies will take, but a useful framework can be derived from the views that one holds toward government limiting freedoms and the purpose behind the government’s action. Libertarians are willing to relinquish very few freedoms to gain more equality or order; businesses are neither strongly aided or strongly regulated. Populists are willing to relinquish certain freedoms to gain more equality and order; businesses are not aided but strongly regulated. Liberals are willing to relinquish some freedoms to gain equality but willing to relinquish even fewer freedoms to gain order; businesses are weakly aided but regulated to implement equality of opportunity and outcome for individuals. Conservatives are willing to relinquish some freedom to gain order but willing to relinquish even fewer freedoms to gain equality, and, hence, businesses enjoy the most help and least regulation from conservative ideologues.

Reference

Janda, K., Berry, J.M., & Goldman, J. (1995) The challenge of democracy: Government in America, (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Green Day’s American Idiot: Conceptual Frames for Understanding News

“Don't want to be an American idiot.

One nation controlled by the media.

Information age of hysteria.

It's calling out to idiot America.”
-- Excerpt from American Idiot by Green Day

Consumers use conceptual frames or opinion schemas to interpret product and political news, despite what media critics suggest (Neuman, Just, & Crigler, 1992). Facts, images, and perceptions typically are organized into opinion schemas that are a means of understanding the images, connections and values that an individual attributes to a subject. According to Neuman, Just and Crigler’s (1992) oft quoted work; five such opinion schemas for interpreting news information have been reported:

1. Economic Frame – “reflects the preoccupation with ‘the bottom line,’ profit and loss, and wider values of the culture of capitalism.” (p. 63)
2. Conflict Frame – stressing of conflict between the parties involved.
3. Powerlessness Frame – interpreting events in terms of submissive and dominant forces.
4. Human Impact Frame – framing of events by focusing on specific people or groups.
5. Morality Frame – reference to G-d, his law, morality and other religious tenets.

At times, the news media do not seem understand how their viewers and readers interpret the news, given that the majority of coverage frames stories by emphasizing conflict between the parties in the news story. The news media frequently report from an angle that implies that the parties or institutions involved in a story are involved in conflict. The conflict perspective may even be created by the medium in an attempt to polarize the parties, such as the possibility of adding more fuel to the fire in race-related issues. Viewers and readers in the study used the conflict frame less than the other conceptual schemas and far less than the media that covered the story (Neuman, Just, & Crigler, 1992).

A person’s opinion schema can be influenced by a fully-developed ideology and serves as a proxy for an realized ideology on some issues. Furthermore, the opinion schemas (i.e., conceptual frames), being networks of organized knowledge and beliefs, affect how people filter, sort, and reorganize information while they construct political meaning. If a reporter or ordinary citizen tends toward employing a particular conceptual frame over another, everything they say or read while they construct political meaning and reality will be influenced by that conceptual frame. For example, if the news item is reported using a conflict frame and is interpreted with a morality frame, then some viewers may see the issue as a holy war. As another example, if the news item is reported from an economic frame and is interpreted from a powerlessness frame, then some viewers may see the issue as capitalism exploiting the masses. Taken to the extreme, the possible alternative views of reality are endless. Hence, it is certainly possible that the news media can influence what think about (i.e., public agenda) but the media far from control us, as the song suggests.

Reference

Neuman, W. R., Just, M.R., & Crigler, A. N. (1992). Common knowledge: news and the construction of political meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.