I recently invested my time into reading the book "Game Change" by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. Though I am only about halfway through the non-fiction book about the 2008 election, something has occurred to me.
In the 2008 Presidential election, some 88% of young white voters and 85% of black voters paid attention to the political race, and ended with the highest voter turnout (56.8%) seen in the United States since 1968. This year, with the midterm elections approaching, voter turnout is poised to be significantly lower. Only 19% of voters aged 18 - 29, 25% of black voters, and 42% of white voters have paid "some" or “significant” attention to the 2010 elections. This is not unusual in a non-presidential election year, but poses the question, where did all those voters go?
The 2008 election, the draw of American voters of all ages, ethnicities, and religions, was a popularity contest. It stirred in American memories the days of high school bickering for prom queen and fawning over the basketball star, who also happened to be the smartest person on campus. The 2008 election was a fight to see who gathered the most "friends".
It was not a campaign of wonderful and innovative policy ideas, a debate of intelligence and fundamental knowledge. The campaign was, instead, a constant measuring of how far a candidate had penetrated the American public. It was a contest to see which candidate gained more popularity than their counterpoints, a competition to evaluate who had most effectively manipulated the entertainment system and twenty-four hour news cycle of America. Honestly, what kind of campaign promise is "hope" or "change"? Voters can fill hope up with anything they desire, and change cannot be evaluated until after the election is over.
But still, people turned out in unprecedented numbers to throw their support behind Obama. Near the beginning of his career, campaigning for State Senate in Illinois, Hillary Clinton dubbed him a "superstar". And a superstar he became.
The 2008 election threw in everything a good reality show needs:
- A debonair candidate who could seemingly charm everyone he met. Would there ever be a chink in Superman's armor?
- A true political family, with decades of time and money spent in this public spotlight. The projected victor. How would their relationship and their relationship with constituents pan out in the election?
- A relatively unknown Alaskan politician, with a certain hometown captivation of America. What next scandal or statement would puncture her perfect family facade?
- A respectable war hero, life politician making his last bid for the most powerful seat in the nation. Simply, would he make it out alive?
The candidates, with their cast of characters called a campaign staff and family, entertained the country, coaxing citizens to political participation, convinced that participating would bring them closer to being in the heat of this new reality show captivating the nation. A mixture of Big Brother and American Idol style coverage, it is no wonder the turnout was unprecedentedly high in 2008.
Today, this 2010 midterm election does not have the same level of dramatic tension. There is no coverage of a national voting game that individuals desire to become enthralled with. The most exciting event thus far this political season was Lisa Murkowski's loss to Tea Party Republican candidate Joe Miller. The Tea Party was established in the events following the 2008 election. This party relies largely on its outspoken participants, elaborate protests, and identification with average Americans. Remind anyone of the reality show called the 2008 Presidential Election?
The only election in which Oprah Winfrey openly supported a candidate has been regarded as a benchmark in political activism. Why? Because Oprah Winfrey is one of the mostly widely known individuals in the United States and a bona fide celebrity. Lending celebrity to causes, brands, movements, candidates, advertising, or nearly anything else draws support because Americans desire to be entertained.
The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness has become the pursuit of entertainment and ignorance. Do individuals really need televisions in their bathrooms? Do Americans need celebrity stalkers heralded as renowned celebrity bloggers? The concerned American community needs to evaluate itself and remove the undue emphasis on entertainment, instead promoting activism in society; a right not nearly enjoyed enough in this country. America's pursuit of happiness has become a license for ignorance. The 2008 election was not won just on merit, but on the ability of candidates to entertain and charm their constituents. The champion of the very long and elaborate reality television show has become president. Let's hear it for America.
Perhaps the authors of “Game Change” were on to something. The political game certainly changed in the campaign for the presidency. The political game following has continued to change, with louder protests and polarizing issues, opinions, and individuals. If the game has indeed changed, as Halperin and Heilemann suggest, why then are so few individuals engaged in this midterm election, which could certainly reverse the dynamic of Congress, alter the power of both the Republican and Democrat parties, and temper the power of the Superstar President? A game change, I think not.
No comments:
Post a Comment