The Importance of Political Education

Sixteen weeks ago I shyly creaked open the door to Glover 130, as I shuffled down the slanted walkway I gazed around at my fellow classmates. I observed dancing Obama screensavers, elephant stickers pasted on backpacks, and the words “For Change” scribbled on notebooks. I slumped into my seat and felt an anxious and overwhelming sensation soak into me and settle, heavily in my stomach. Would I be able to do this? I am a registered Republican and active in local politics but am I smart enough to talk politics with these opinionated people or will they laugh at my lack of knowledge? I fiddled nervously with my pens, sitting up straighter trying to look like I know what I’m doing. The weeks flew by this class became a highlight in my academic schedule. Everyday the lectures entertained me while helping me learn simultaneously, who would have thought! I had moments where I felt proud to be an American and I had flashes of disdain for the democratic government system. Most importantly this course made me realize that our political system is firmly built on the participation of its citizens. In order for our political system to stay healthy and thrive we as American need to get out and vote. I look at myself, I have had 15 years of formal education and voting still intimidates me, but through enrolling in a course, reading literature, and listening to my teacher and classmates I feel not only prepared by obligated to take a swim in our active political culture. Today I will argue that through the implementation of politically center courses in our public education curriculum voter participation will increase and politicians will feel greater pressure to accurately represent their constituents. Through these political education courses issues such as popular culture’s effect on politics would become less influential. Most of all with education voters can resist media’s power on politics.

Formal political education is where the change needs to commence. Hollihan explains that voter “turnout has historically been higher among well-educated citizens.” (Hollihan, 307) Only 170 million out of the 220 million eligible voters are registered to vote and in 2008 61.7% of these eligible voters made it to the polls in the presidential election, this is the highest voter turnout since the 1968 presidential race. Clearly we have a problem motivating citizens to participate in politics. Citizens claim that they aren’t informed enough, their vote doesn’t count, or they don’t have time to make it to the polls. Hopefully with certain courses people will begin to see that voting is a precious gift and a right that our ancestors were willing to die for. By implementing these educational courses Americans will have the opportunity to learn the basics of our political structure such as the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches of government. They will learn the primary issues supported by each party and where they stand on the political spectrum. When I entered this class I had taken two government classes in my 15 years of education and even in the beginning of this course the basics of political parties were discussed. Voter turnout numbers are low, but they are extremely dwindling in the 18-24 age group. In the 2008 elections the 18-24 age group produced only 48% of their eligible voters, this was an increase from 2004. Young people should be extremely stimulated to contribute to our political system because they are fresh from public education, the fact they there are not clearly illustrates the need for political curriculum.

When political education becomes an integrated part of public school curriculum I believe we will see a change in our countries political communication. With background knowledge in place citizens will be able to pick a candidate that complies with their personal political needs, and hopefully they will become less influenced by skewed portrays of certain political figures. In the curriculum there would be a unit, similar to ours, on politics and pop culture. It is absolutely pivotal that students learn the difference between political satire and actual issue based information. Tina Fey is not an accurate image of Sarah Palin, nor is she actually articulating her political platforms. With the completion of a political education course Americans well be able to distinguish between comedy and reality. Also when learning in the literature how to identify a legitimate news source, people will be able to access real unbiased news. This will allow citizens to recognize programs like The Daily Show as purely entertaining not informative. Popular culture is drowning our political participation because of authority over voters. If programs like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show continue to portray public leaders as blubbering idiots then people fell less motivated to vote for these leaders. Many American don’t have the educational resources to realize that this isn’t real! Political education can empower citizens to distinguish politics from popular culture in order to make educated political decisions.

Politics and media is the ultimate love hate relationship. Essentially mass media sources are the gateway to political communication; one cannot live without the other. The use of media has a powerful affect on voter participation because media outlets control the political information they receive. Jones explains that “media are our primary points of access to politics-the ‘space in which politics now chiefly happens for most people,’ and the place for political encounters that precede, shape, and at times determine further bodily participation (if it id to happen at all).” Political education is especially important when dealing with the media because of is intimate relationship with politics. It has the ability to effect voters’ political judgments on candidates and issues. With the political media education citizens will have a better understanding of media bias and have the capacity to separate influence from information. In politics the media will always play a role, whether it’s are scathing a politician, labeling flaws and inexperience, or laying the ground work for controversy the media will always be our easiest access for political information. This why it’s so important that we understand the web of mass media. My biggest hope is that with a politically educated society we can fracture mass media’s capability to hinder a candidates’ success by impeding their characters through demeaning acts like hypersexualization. When people hear the media talk about Barack Obama wearing mom jeans they take politics less serious and are less likely to vote. Especially when the media blows up stories of politicians’ infidelity, people then stereotype all politicians as liars and are less likely to vote. I personally feel that when a politician has marital problems it has absolutely no weight on their political occupation. Politics is about electing leaders that will best represent the people, not the variety show that modern politics has turned into. Education will at the very least give voters the opportunity to form their own opinions without the mass media’s manipulation.

Political educational curriculum is one answer to improve our countries political communication. Of course we can never guarantee that people will take it seriously, but at least they would have they opportunity to be an active member of society. Education is a prime key to the success of our nation and will lead to higher levels of participation through voter turnout. Along with providing means of participation, political education will help turn around the slippery slope that is popular culture. It is now time we educate ourselves enough to recognize the difference between political humor and real current issues. Politicians should not be judged on how good they look and what diet there on, but if they can move millions of Americans to a better tomorrow. It’s time to let go of traditional gender and race roles and let American grow into a more intellectually diverse society. I believe that through formal political education citizens will become more motivated to vote and less influenced be popular media’s images of political figures and policies.

The Effects of Live/Digital Hybrid Debate Formatting on Modern Political Communication

American debates have been a long-standing tradition in our political society. Finally, the candidates stand face to face and there can finally be a clear winner. Throughout history, candidate debates have traveled a bumpy road, being pushed and jerked behind the wheels of growing technologies, trying to keep up with the latest cultural trends. We witnessed the power of media in the first televised presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. President Nixon refused to wear stage make up and was very tight and stone like in front of the cameras, because of this strange visual image he projected to voters he was said to have lost the debate. The format of debates have transformed over the years in an attempt to produce more viewers and educate more citizens. Modern political debates have taking a very interesting and controversial turn by incorporating virtual citizen participation. In the 2008 campaign candidates responded to questions from ordinary citizens that were posted on video sites like YouTube. This revolutionary style of debate questioning demonstrated political debates leap into the 21^st century. The use of live/digital hybrid debate format in contemporary politics is a positive and progressive step for candidates because it allows for average American citizens to question their governmental representatives on issues they care about.

Live debate questioning has move political debating into a more interactive and entertaining experience. Typical voters were permitted to ask questions to presidential candidates that were important in their lives. This also showed candidates the critical issues to middle class voters and how their political policies would affect them. With the use of YouTube videos, the moderators or debate host are able to create a flow of communication that both promotes political education and attracts a younger, more influential audience. These videos are made by ordinary American citizens, not elite media organizations or highly educated political analysts. Instead of candidates receiving questions like, “Senator Obama what is your feedback on our countries progress in the war in Iraq and how do you think this active influence of American present will effect our dependence on foreign fuels while influencing domestic research for an alternate energy source?” Since only 27.2% of Americans graduate from college, a complicated and compound question such as this might confuse or exclude voters from understanding the candidate’s response. With the use of digital questioning a normal citizen could simply ask, “do you think that we are in Iraq because they have oil and because we have not found a way to produce that much fuel in the United States?” This type of question is clear and to the point, which in turn makes the answer more obvious and understandable.

This type of concise questioning also makes it more difficult for candidates to avoid answering the questions, which is a constructive aspect of live/digital hybrid format. When a candidate is asked straight up if he is for or against gay marriage it is hard for him to “bridge to gap” into another issue. This is an incredibly exciting new form of political communication because it allows for citizens to interact and interrogate candidates we read about and observe on television. The fact the any constituent has the option to participate holds the candidate accountable for their positions on certain issues in a more direct manner. The constant development of progressive technology creates new forms of political communication that modern politics is forced to pursue. In the case of digital debate formatting, our political society has been able to play a more prevalent role in debate discourse with our communities and with the candidates themselves. It is comforting to know that candidates are able to see the faces of their typical constituents, people that might not be at speeches, rallies, or political events and leaders then have the chance to educate voters while inspiring them to get out and vote!

The application of modern technologies in our political culture most importantly draws in younger voters that would not conventionally participate in or watch candidate debates. The 2008 debates, on both the Republican and Democrat sides of the spectrum, were transformed into entertaining and educational experiences. The issues weren’t down played but the serious and harsh were turned into thoughts of hope and enthusiasm for our country’s future and for our leaders. According to political advertising specialist, the YouTube broadcast provided an, “exponentially greater opportunity to reach a young, active, passionate audience, one that is far bigger than the combined audiences of the nightly newscasts and the five debates that have been shown on television so far this season. For those five debates, the majority of viewers were older than 55.” This example shows the importance of integrating entertainment and popular culture into modern politics, especially in debates where real issues are not tainted with entertainment hosts’ bias. In the debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the moderator showed many comedy clips made by citizens. This lightened the competitive ambiance and showed the candidates fun and amusing images. It also helped keep the attention of younger viewers. Hollihan cited the debate as “’revolutionary’” and noted that it did succeed in drawing a larger audience of younger viewers.” The age group 18-24 has the least voter participation out of any other age demographic in The United States; this statistic is very unsettling because of the fact that these voters are the future of our political culture. As a member of this age group I understand the negative connotation that follows the word “politics”, or the thought that older politicians are very hard for someone like me to identify with. I would much rather watch The Real World than some 60 year old, white hair man in a gray suit tell me how I probably won’t get a job when I graduate. We are the information generation centered on the Internet. We are continually communicating with each other and have access to the whole world through a 13-inch computer screen. Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are the first websites up on my browsers. I am a typical young voter! By incorporating the use of these mass media tools in modern politics, we can turn what use to be seen as “boring” by our age group into an entertaining way to participate and educate ourselves on political candidates and their policies.

The implementation of live/digital hybrid debate format has once again transfigured our political debate system into an innovative event that appeals to younger audiences while increasing voter education and participation. The importance of this political formatting cannot be stressed enough. Mobilizing voters, especially younger ones is what keeps our country running strong and our leaders responsible for their actions. The 2008 debates used modern social media to not only attract more diverse viewers but to connect with ordinary voters that have uncomplicated, real life questions. This challenges candidates that are probably not a member of the working class to articulate to these voters why they care and why they would best represent them and support policies that would benefit their economic position. Also the use of satire and popular culture helps create an image that is easier for young voters to relate to. Live/digital hybrid debate formatting has positively swayed our contemporary political communication into the 21^st century attracting a younger audience, and causing increased voter participation and a stronger democratic system.

Prayer and Politics

“Agitate – Educate- Legislate!” This powerful slogan can be heard and read throughout American communities since 1874. In the 19^th century Christian women congregated in order to protest saloons and other establishments that supplied alcohol in their neighborhoods, and fight for the American families values. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union was founded in 1874 by American women who sought to provide education, and to promote legislation that would ban all alcohol consumption along with tobacco and harmful drugs. The use of religion as a foundation in the formation of special interest groups such as the WCTU, helps create a common ground of membership along with the shared theme of morality and family values. The WCTU is an example of how religion and politics are directly related by creating a movement that connects faith with political issues. Today I will argue that the formation of 19^th century religiously motivated special interest groups such as the WCTU have paved the way for not only women to enter the sphere of political participation but also demonstrates the incredible power that religion has over political communication in American communities.

The Women’s Christian Temperance Union was centered around the ideas of American purity through religious education and abstinence from anything that would contaminate the soul. The importance of this radical group was that for the first time, women were able to assemble and converse about political issues, but also because these women produced powerful protests that influenced their communities to prohibit alcohol consumption. The women would use the persuasion of prayer to influence saloon owners to stop serving their neighbors alcohol. According to the WCTU’s website, “in three months the women had driven liquor out of 250 communities, and for the first time felt what could be accomplished by standing together.” ("Women's Christian Temperance Union") Through the use of religious rhetoric the WCTU was able to convince their communities that alcohol was morally wrong and the consumption of liquor completely went against American family values. In the 19^th century, religion was a very important aspect of family and cultural life, and nobody wanted to be considered “sinful” or “impure.” The women used this religious fear in order to push their political agenda for the protection of women and children. “The WCTU adopted this as a policy, which came to mean that all reform was inter-connected and that social problems could not be separated. The use of alcohol and other drugs was a symptom of the larger problems in society.” ("Women's Christian Temperance Union") By supporting religion and prayer, the WTCU incorporated tainted cultural issues into their fight for family rights, and because women did not have the right to vote or the protection of property in the event of a divorce, women were virtually powerless and were not able to protect themselves or their families. In response the their lack of individual power they attempted to change society in order to support their personal agendas. If their husbands were not legally able to go out and drink, they were less likely to come home drunk and beat their wives and children. Religion served as their foundation of morality, but their determination is what predicted and influenced change.

By 1894, the Women’s Christian Temperance Unions’ main focus had turned to women’s suffrage. They fought for the right to vote and became one the biggest and most powerful women’s and religious organization in the country. The WCTU continued to encourage family and moral legislation. In 1920, when women received the right to vote they became one of the most influential voting demographics in the country and this legacy continues today. The WCTU in the 21^st century continues to support the same family values they did 135 years ago. Their website demonstrates their support for religious education in order to promote abstinence from drugs and alcohol in teens and young adults. They work to convince their audience to indentify with social problems that alcohol causes. The WCTU delivers staggering statistics to persuade readers how appalling alcohol can be and the problems that can grow from consumption. Did you know that 350 people die everyday from alcohol related issues, or that 31% of high school age teens admit to binge drink each week, or how about that fetal alcohol syndrome is the number one of preventable birth defects? ("Women's Christian Temperance Union") They argue that through the teachings of the Bible and religious morality young people can lead a more fulfilling life of purity and sobriety. The WCTU is still very much involved in political issues and communication. They sway toward the right side of the political spectrum by promoting the injunction of medical marijuana and same-sex marriages. They support the outlawing of alcohol, tobacco, all drugs, pornography, and gambling. WCTU encourages religious families to embrace the language and teachings of the Bible and use these values in their political decisions and communication with the purpose of promoting the spread of morality throughout society.

The early culture of The United States of America was filled with religious influence and rhetoric. Our cultural was formed around puritan ideals of morality and conformity, and throughout our political history voters have struggled to find the line between politics and religion. Groups like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union mix politics with religion and the use of guilt to pressure people into believing that in order to be faithful to God, we must always vote using religious undertones. I come from a very Catholic family that was extremely active in our church and our community. I would consider myself extremely faithful and I am encouraged by leaders in my church to illustrate my faith by opposing anti-Catholic legislation. However, should God or His literature have any effect on how we communicate politically in 2009? Should we as voters be influenced by literature that was written thousands of years ago, as well as be expected to apply it to our modern political decisions? No. In religious communities it is important the draw the line between social issue and political issues. The WCTU promotes political support for the abolition of alcohol and tobacco in order to lead a religiously pure life. This is a waste of their powerful resources! American political cultural in 2009 will never support the abolition of alcohol or tobacco, and educating abstinence to children because the Bible says so is not preparing them with the tools to enter modern society. The WCTU is a positive organization because it empowers women to become educated and stand up of their beliefs, but their use of strict religious policies hinders their ability to influence voters and traps them in the 19^th century. This organization is a perfect example of why progressive politics can’t be mixed with religion because of the old traditional values that no longer fit in our modern society.

Although American society was build on the establishment of religious society and organization we must learn to separate our political identity with our religious identity. I feel that is possible for me to be a Catholic on Sundays and a Republican on Mondays and even though I identify with my strong traditional faith, I use my modern education and experiences to make important political decisions. Groups like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union are important to our political society because they provide women with the ability to openly discuss politics and promote voter participation, but their use of religion in political communication is very outdated. When the tradition of religion is combined with contemporary political culture, our political system is weakened because of the outdated ideals of religion have no relevance to our current political issues.

Pop Politics

The word “politics” has always been associated with a connotation of boredom and dull news. Throughout history many Americans have been more than disinterested on politics, numerous people didn’t care enough participate in political discourse issues or research political topics. However in modern political communication candidates have mixed with popular culture ideals and twisted into a strange cocktail of amusement and information. Political candidates now must portray a representation of themselves that fit pop cultural roles and mannerisms as well as be able to let the whole world mock them and their policies. Entertainment pop culture helps promote political participation, but leads voters to make unformed decisions after viewing political spoof show’s interpretation of candidates and policies. The Saturday Night Live skit featuring Will Ferrell and Tina Fey as George Bush and Sarah Palin describes the idea of braiding political figures with contemporary popular culture ideology.

The skit begins with Will Ferrell playing George W. Bush and addressing the nation as the president while attempting to endorse the McCain campaign. Ferrell starts by explaining that he has decided to talk at night because when he speaks during the day, the stock market dips. Mr. President also explains that there is an important election coming up with some very talented candidates, “the hot girl and the Tiger Woods guy.” The president continues to ignorantly verbalize his climbing approval ratings, which in truth were not rising at all. Will Ferrell illustrates all of George W. Bush stereotypes, of ignorance, arrogance, and just plain stupidity. Through these imitations American’s at first sight judgments of their president are upheld and reinforced, they really begin to believe that George W. Bush is extremely unintelligent. Ferrell also plays on George W. Bush’s apparent public speaking tribulations by squinting his eyes and rocking his head back and forth. While the president explains the hardships he had getting John McCain to appear for a public endorsement, Tina Fey as Sara Palin enters the Oval Office, blows the audience a kiss to the audience and suggestively sits on the President’s desk. She crosses her legs and has an inviting smile on her face when the President asks where is John McCain? Palin explains that the minute he heard that President Bush wanted to publicly endorse him for the presidential election, McCain could not be found. He was apparently last seen on foot in the Adirondacks, but not to worry Sarah Palin’s husband and some of his “drinking buddies” were tracking him on snowmobiles. Will Ferrell then again portrays Bush’s lack of knowledge for the American political system by stating that the president can’t do anything without the approval of the vice-president. Palin apologetically explains to him that is incorrect but doesn’t want to get all “Katie Couric” on him, all of the sudden Palin’s husband bursts in the office, snow gear and all, with rescued Senator McCain. President Bush immediately grabs him, while McCain aggressively draws away from Bush, and proclaims his endorsement for the McCain Palin presidential candidate. The president explains that a vote for John McCain is a vote for President Bush, while Sarah Palin floats behind them, smiling like a beauty queen.

Actors like Tina Fey and Will Ferrell examine political candidates in order to learn mannerisms that could be use to mock their public image. They take advantage of every public stereotype and manipulate them into their portrayal of the candidates. Sarah Palin for example was shown prancing into the room, blowing kisses and looking very sexy. She immediately placed herself suggestively onto the oval office desk, as to appear very at home and comfortable. She answered the President’s questions on the where abouts of John McCain without hesitation, never wondering why he was not there. Tina Fey demonstrated Sara Palin as her stereotypical images, beautiful, charming, and completely unaware of any sort of public policy. Will Ferrell as plays strongly to President Bush’s biggest weakness, being in the public eye. Ferrell is often very awkward and seem oblivious to people or things around him, most of the time he just acts dumb. The worst part about Ferrell’s illustration is the portrayal that every policy The Bush Administration implemented had a negative effect on our country. Not only is this completely false but incredibly disrespectful to George W. Bush, who was, as I will remind them, the president during the worst terrorist attack in our countries history and re-elected to the presidential office the next term.

The blending of popular culture and politics is unavoidable and we can never stop comedians for mocking public figures. Saturday Night Live, I would personally argue, is one of the best comedy shows on television and their use of politically motivated content helps to increase political awareness and mobilize voters, but increase awareness of what? The beauty of our American democracy is the fact that our country is built upon the ideas of freedom of speech and open political discussion, so it is possible for shows like SNL to completely mock the federal government and its officials. The problem at hand is programs like SNL are entertainment shows and are viewed more often by the American public then news stations like CNN or CSPAN. The majority of the American public is not intelligently involved in political discourse and even more citizens are unwilling to take part in deliberative, unpartisan discussion about political issues. They instead take political information and make policy decisions based off of programs like SNL and The Soup. Our political society learns to believe political figures are indeed just sexy, stupid women that think being Vice President involves sipping martinis and playing golf. These portrayals demoralize women in politics by performing Sarah Palin as a soccer mom, when in fact she is a very smart, articulate, and politically savvy women who is strong in grass root issues and very personable with her constituents. President Bush is undoubtedly the center of political entertainment ridicule; he has been called every name in the book. George W. Bush was not the best public speaker, not like Obama who just stands up and says jump, and the whole country replies how high. He was however the President of the United States, a position that should be giving respect, just as we respect President Obama. This does not mean that we are not at liberty to challenge our leader, but we always do it politely. President Bush was an Ivy League graduate and attended Harvard Business School; he is far from stupid. As an American voter I would much prefer a president that is not afraid to make controversial and difficult decisions, then a leader who is more concerned with keeping up his celebrity status.

American democracy allows for mainstream popular culture entertainment to use modern political content, and even humorously mock public officials. We as Americans have the right to freedom of expression and broadcast networks are not politically motivated, which in turn permits healthy political dialogue. Entertainment programs like Saturday Night Live are very funny and I promote their use of political policy on their programs because it encourages voter participation, but as a political society we ought to promote the message that SNL’s political communication is meant for mere entertainment value. They should not be taken seriously or applied to political decision-making, and unfortunately many people believe that these performances are politically viable. Also the teasing of political figures must be done tastefully and respectfully, no genderizing of candidates, men or women, they should be ridiculed in the same manner. The most important factor involved with mixing pop culture with progressive politics is educating the masses to realize that these political charades are not real! We as a political and intellectual culture should laugh at Saturday Night Live but take American politics seriously.

Gender in Contrast Political Advertising

The 2008 American Presidential election is one for the history books. No one can argue that this exciting time brought up numerous issues never witnessed in any previous election. The front-runner of these controversial topics was gender and how it will affect our political culture. Is the United States of America ready for Mrs. President? The idea of a woman becoming the commander of the free world was a transformation. Several voters were apprehensive about, but candidate Hillary Clinton learned to twisted this negative position toward women in politics to her favor using some very clever contrast political advertisements. The controversial advertisement that illustrated Senator Clinton capturing control of her gender role was the “It’s 3am and the White House phone is ringing.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg&feature=PlayList&p=301C61E4EB19FEF5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15. This commercial combined the concept of a contrasting political advertising and women’s power in politics.

When the commercial begins we hear a quiet telephone ringing and the picture flashes to a beautiful serene middle-class house. We travel into the house and gaze upon several children sleeping peacefully with a delicate ringing in the darkness. The children seem so innocent and helpless, almost as though they need to be protected. The narrator explains that it is 3am and our American children are safe and asleep, but “there is a phone is ringing in the White House and there is something going on in the world.” This dooming message promotes fear for these defenseless children implying that they might not be safe forever, unless someone powerful answers this fateful call. The speaker encourages viewers to make an important choice that determines who answers this critical phone call by asking who would you want answering this phone call? “Someone who already knows the world’s leaders, who knows the military,” and who most significantly has experience in dangerous leadership situations. The obvious answer to these imperative questions is, yes! Of course we want a leader that is acknowledged and respected throughout the world! We absolutely want someone that can recognize and responsibly manage a political or economic crisis. The audience wishes to defend American children, but in order to shelter them, citizens require a very influential and powerful leader. The phone continues to chime as the listeners feel apprehension about the delicate children security, but suddenly the children’s mother tiptoes into their room with the intention of caring for her young ones. The commercial demonstrates that America needs maternal armor. Finally the light of America comes on and our experienced and brave motherly guardian, Hillary Clinton, answers the call of duty. This ingenious commercial completely flips the gendered hesitation about women in powerful political roles and provides evidence to prove that only an experienced mother could handle the job.

Through out the 2008 campaign the subject of gender was always looming in the backdrops, all voters realized that change was inevitable but no one really knew how exactly the change would effect our culture. A woman commander and chief would revolutionize our whole political structure. It would uproot centuries of masculine leadership image tradition and sincerely put our country’s trust to the test. It’s an age-old question; can a woman encompass all the required skills to command the free world? Can she ever be as good as a man? Most of these reservations, as ridiculous as they are, have been entrenched in our culture ever since our founding fathers wrote the Constitution. Through gender concerns the male candidates have an unspoken advantage over any female candidate, because American voters are uneasy about a woman leader. The 2008 election was a very monumental period for women in politics because it demonstrated that America is growing up and evolving gendered basis of political figures. Even though Hillary Clinton didn’t win a nomination she was nevertheless perceived as a valuable and legitimate candidate and that is an immense stride for women’s political image.

Hillary Clinton was constantly blasted by negative and contrast political ads throughout the campaign not only for being a woman but also for serving as the former First Lady. The 3am ad was a very controversial and effective ad that produced some political turbulence. This advertisement was so shrewd because it captured all these negative connotations about female leadership and completely distorted them into an affirmative representation, along with damaging the creditability of Barack Obama. She progressed away from the concept of a masculine leader and molded the presidential role into a motherly protector that is persistently guarding her children. This gendered maternal initiative is comforting to Americans just as we are reassured by the thought of our own mother watching over us while we sleep; we feel safe and secure. A mother is a model of someone who will always be there for you even at 3am, and this portrayal is precisely what Americans to feel protected. Through this ad Hilary Clinton used social gender positions to her advantage in order to persuade Americans to perceive her as America’s mother, which is a job only an experienced mother could succeed at. She also threw the unique and powerful emotion of a mother’s love into the mix and according to Hollihan, “most consultants believed it was vitally important to reach voters with emotional appeal, and that the appearance and images mattered substantially more did extensive amounts of information.” (Hollihan 154) A mother’s role is usually a caregiver, an individual that permanently acts in their child’s best interest, a mother grizzly that fights fearlessly for her cub. The momma bear image began to influence Americans that perhaps a woman’s touch is exactly what we need in the Oval Office.

The 3am contrast ad also preformed an influential role in questioning Obama’s ability to lead our country. Even though the ad never spoke Barack Obama’s name, it nonetheless shaped an inexperienced and naïve portrait of him as a leader. Hillary Clinton established that she had lived in the White House before, she had encountered and conversed with world leaders and several were familiar with her policies and were in reliance with her. She has already experienced the pressures of existing in the public spotlight while working to promote a positive female political icon. Clinton has previously survived through a presidential campaign and term and with a pro like Bill Clinton at her side she can’t go wrong. Most importantly she slammed Obama’s weakest aspect in his presidential push, experience. The majority of the American voters had never even seen Barack Obama prior to his leap on the scene and promises of political, social, and economic change. We had by no means observed any of his political policies or any governmental achievements. Obama was a self-proclaimed candidate that had a way with words and an unbelievable presence. People were hypnotized by his speech but numerous groups still asked, where did this guy come from? He is younger and certainly does not come from a family of political enforcement; even his personal history as a citizen was questioned. A large fraction of the political community doubted his ability to lead as a consequence of his extreme deficit of political relationships and his scarce familiarity among foreign affairs. The Hillary Clinton 3am contrast political advertisement danced on every one of Americans’ insecurities about Barack Obama and planted a strong seed of doubt.

The 3am ad served as a perfect example of a tremendously effective political contrast ad that flipped negative gender roles into a radical new interpretation of women leaders. This ad shifted Americans’ vision of delicate women directors into a fresh attitude of motherly bravery and attention. The ad encompasses various significant and unspoken political communications into thirty seconds of flashing illustrations and anxious sound that not only presents innovative political gender designs but also simultaneously undercuts the opponent’s ability to adequately compete.

Work Cited

Hollihan, Thomas. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns of the Media Age. 2nd. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2008. Print.

Hollywood’s Influence on Masculine Presidential Image

The President of the United States is the most honored title in the world. American war movies smear outbreaks of chaotic panic with people darting through the streets shouting for help. In such turmoil, terrified citizens look to their leader, their savor, their President. In these movies the President is usually a strapping male hero, a silver fox that is confident and inspiring. In these moments of mayhem he draws Americans together and performs an awe-inspiring speech that somehow the entire country can hear. This remarkable speech motivates citizens to keep their chin up and work together to have a successful future. The movie The American President portrays this masculine image of a no nonsense president that not only defends his honor but the honor of a young woman as well. This film demonstrates the popular culture painting of the ultra masculine presidential image that is a powerful protector and never displays weakness, but yet a hopeless romantic who treats every woman like a princess.

The American President is a romantic comedy that stars Michael Douglas as the popular, attractive, and intelligent President Andrew Shepard who is still morning the death of his wife to cancer. During his reelection campaign Shepard encounters the fiery, sexy lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade, played by Annette Bening, and strikes a deal to support her environmental bill only if she finds ten more votes for his anti-crime legislation. In their dramatic meeting sparks fly like fireworks and President develops feelings for Wade. He attempts to keep his actions professional but he invites her to a state dinner at the White House and begins to fall in love with her. As the campaign season takes off Shepard’s opponent Bob Rumson stumbles upon their forbidden relationship and begins to reveal Sydney’s secret past in order to question incumbent, Shepard’s, character. The President gets labeled a “wussy” for not responding to these relentless attacks and Wade loses her job as a lobbyist. The most famous scene in the movie takes place when the President’s press secretary is answering questions from the media and one sassy reporter inquires if the president will ever respond to Senator Rumson accusations, suddenly Andrew Shepard burst into the newsroom followed by a train of stunned looking people and shouted “Yes he will!” He immediately commands the reporters’ attention and starts aggressively speaking. He begins by defending his title as President and his character as a man, “I can tell you without hesitation that being president of The United States is entirely about character.” While the stunted journalists gaze unblinkingly up to him his face softens for a moment while he threatens if, “you want a character debate Bob then you better stick with me, because Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league “ Finally he stands up tall, looks directly in the camera at the audience and announces, “you want to talk about character and American values that’s fine, just tell me where and when and I’ll show up. This is a time for serious people Bob and your fifteen minutes is up. My name is Andrew Shepard and I am The President!”

Andrew Shepard is the ultimate masculine illusion of the presidential image. He is smart, humble, strong, handsome, and respectful. He selflessly fights for what is best for his country and is always honest with his continents. Shepard never lets others influence his decisions or opinions; he is the boss, end of discussion. When he kicked down the door into the White House newsroom he proved to his audience that he will decide when to respond and doesn’t need anyone to advise him on what to say, he always knows what to say. Shepard embodies the prefect president, one that we can always respect but at the same time be his friend or maybe even his lover. He stands up for the woman he loves and represents a protector, almost daring Rumson the mess with her. Any woman would be lucky to have a powerful, passionate man like him. Andrew Shepard also confirms that being The President of The United States is not a job for the faint of heart, it calls for “serious people that make serious decisions.” Shepard exemplifies every character trait that our society values in a President.

Films like The American President reinforce outdated, extremely traditional images of a presidential figure. We as a culture constantly have this ideal icon of what a president should be, how he ought to appear physically and how he should act emotionally. This hyper-masculine representation is detrimental to the political growth of our society and frankly incredibly unrealistic. It completely extinguishes women leaders by implying that women need production and that they would never be tough enough to command a nation like Andrew Shepard. In the motion picture Air Force One Glenn Close serves as the female Vice President when terrorist hijacks the President’s plane, during the crisis she does not take control, she gives no inspiring speech, and she is a mess. These types of movie roles deceive the American public into believing that popular political gender stereotypes are reality. Due to these one-sided media roles American modern political culture is less likely to elect a woman into office, and if a female candidate produced any aggressive or authoritative behavior she was be label “crazy” or “bitchy” not unlike Hillary Clinton. In American political history citizens have usually elected an alpha male leader that supported many masculine political platforms like military strength or that contained hostile wartime agendas. We as a society have learned to conform to the idea that men are better leaders because they are stronger and more assertive do to characters roles like Andrew Shepard.

The American President also shows a very interesting side of American political culture and the sexualization of the presidential illustration. Andrew Shepard is a very attractive man that is also powerful, he knows what he wants and defends the people he cares about. In the movie he falls in love with a beautiful woman and respects her even if her past is not so innocent. Andrew Shepard is any woman’s dream. In American political society presidents have worked to make their image more sexual toward women, with the thought that if a woman finds them charming and becomes attracted to them, then they will vote for that candidate. Serotypes of women voters include that fact that they vote based on physically attraction toward presidential candidates. Women are socially taught to view presidential hopefuls as assertive powerful men that they can always count on. Women’s role in voting has been a rollercoaster of culture ideals and radical feminist proposals, and with popular culture defining political gender roles for women how will man denominated political culture ever take this female demographic seriously? In the future our society ought to move towards morphing women into a significant political unit not only as candidates but as voters as well.

Influences like movie characters are becoming all too real in our countries political society. Roles like Andrew Shepard instill values in our modern political system that we should have outgrown many decades ago. Americans are still centered on this idea of a perfectly persistent, masculine president. Our reflection of this overly masculine image unfortunately does not usually lead to an Andrew Shepard president or an incredibly selfless leader. Women’s media roles as leaders also convince men and other women that the immense pressure or the authority of sitting in the Oval Office would be too strenuous for a woman to cope with. It implies that women are too weak to lead. If our society continues this twisted popular image of what a leader is suppose to be, we will overlook various unbelievably talented presidents, that may have the most powerful tactic of all, individuality.

Modern Media's Influence on Progressive Political Image

The cover of the August issue of People magazine depicts an informal image of the presidential family. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20214569_1,00.html

In the photo President Obama is relaxing in a casual flannel shirt and blue jeans, cradling his youngest child in a protective yet gentle fatherly embrace. His wife stands proudly at his side with a charming smile and her head nestled on his shoulder, while his older daughter leans at his right looking shy and sweet. This is a family that Americans can truly admire, we can be proud that such a wholesome and friendly family holds the most important leadership position in our country’s history. We can relate to them. We are them. What does this picture really prove to us as a political society? The Obamas can smile in flannel? Does this ideal image of the American nuclear family really have any relevant connotation to President Obama’s leadership ability? This picture was carefully planned down to the last flawless element. It paints a very significant portrait that is subconsciously trying to appeal to voters’ moral compass. Media portrays political images in order to move the opinions of voters to either negative or positive viewpoints; the People magazine article is an example of a media scripted homophily.

The media moves mass voter opinions’ of political figures by changing the way society observes them. The Obamas appeal to the family approval aspect by showing themselves as an everyday causal American family that just happens to live in the White House. The Obama’s are surveyed by the public as a normal American family that deals with typical family issues. In the August People magazine article President Obama explained that he pays his daughter one dollar a week to do chores like “clean up their half of the third floor where they play. They have a closet of toys they have to clean up. They have to practice their piano every day.” (Sandra Westfall 2) This image sculpting illustrates that the Obama girls are just like any ordinary American preteen children. The Obamas go onto describe how they teach their family the value of money and hard work, which are ironically some of the most important American societal values as well. They don’t spoil the girls. For example they don’t buy the girls birthday presents because they spend money on the party. “They get so much stuff that it just becomes numbing. Malia believes there is still a Santa Claus even though she's a little wary because some of her friends are non-believers. But Malia says, ‘Ma, I know there is a Santa because there's no way you'd buy me all that stuff.’” (Sandra Westfall 1) This political imagery creates simulations that the American public can easily relate to. Americans see that the Obamas experience that same family issues that everyday American families work through. This sham of a relational connection causes voters to become more attracted to the Obama family, which triggers people to support Obama’s political decisions, even though this ideal reflection of his family has absolutely nothing to do with the political legislation he promotes.

Included in the People magazine article on the Obama family is another picture that was taken in 1992 at Michelle and Barack Obama’s wedding. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20214569_5,00.html. The photograph is of President Obama sprawling out on an old park bench with his new wife carefully tucked into him. They are both peacefully pretending to sleep. The picture shows the couple leaning on each other for support just as they do today, portraying a strong intelligent partnership. From an American societal prospective this snapshot shows that President Obama is committed to being a pillar of strength to his wife, which causes Americans to believe that he will use this same kind of relaxed, effective leadership style when it comes to commanding our country. In the article the Obamas commented how that presidential campaign has changed their marriage. Michelle Obama states “I think it has made us stronger. Time and love and sacrifice and hard struggles, I think, make you stronger.” (Sandra Westfall 5) The article illustrates how the intense period of separation and limited family contact on the campaign trail has made their marriage stronger. The People article demonstrates that the Obamas face standard marriage issues that every conjugal couple faces, which ordinary American couples, can associate with. Through the use of political image tactics such as homophily, the Obamas create a more positive image that in turn allows for more support of his presidential political policy. Hollihan describes this persuasion tactic as “candidate’s image is homophily, or the natural tendency of people to bond with others like themselves.”(Hollihan 85) Michelle and Barack Obama put on a unified front that convince Americans that President Obama is a strong man, with a respectable moral character, that would never be caught in the middle of a juicy scandal. Through this media exposed image of the presidential family, American society puts their faith in President Obama’s capability to successfully lead The United States of America because People magazine published pictures of him being a devoted and trustworthy wife and father.

Now that politics has intertwined with American popular culture it is vital for candidates to reveal a fresh and modern image in order to gain popularity. President Obama has mastered the media art of creating a cool and relaxed image. Saturday Night Live often does satire of President Obama’s nonchalant attitude, like the video in this link, http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/obama-plays-it-cool/866342/. In this media political age candidate need to have spreads in magazines like People and O in order to get voter attention, because numerous citizens now relay on sources like The Late Show as the primary supply of political news. Hollihan describes the process of freshening a candidate’s image and uses the example of former presidential aspirant Steve Forbes. “When Steve decided to run again in 2000, he hired William Eisner, the head of a Milwaukee advertising agency, to freshen his image. The goal was to remake public perceptions of Forbes so he would be seen as a scintillating and witty man with the personality to sit in the Oval Office.” (Hollihan 88)

The mixture of new media and modern politics has created a contemporary form of personal political communication. As a mass political culture Americans no longer care about the professional legislative image of a candidate, but focus on their personal accomplishments like family and marriage. The People magazine article on President Obama demonstrates that creating an original, wholesome, good character impression trumps all obligations to attempt to gain support for any real political issues that a candidate supports. According Hollihan “Perhaps the greatest power of these news magazine is not content of their stories but the impact of their decisions regarding which candidates they will feature on their front covers. A favorable cover photo (one that does not portray a candidate, haggard, old, worried, ect.) can have a dramatic impact on the candidate’s viability and credibility.” (Hollihan 107) Our modern political society is so concerned with mass media, that Americans’ central important aspect of politics is to feel as though they know the candidate and their character. As long as the American public believes that a candidate is essentially a decent person they adamantly give their support for the contender without even researching their political stance on significant topics.

Popular media merging with progressive political communication seems inevitable, but it is in the hands of our society to unite and discover how to resist mass media’s slanted political jargon and realize that weeks of preparation go into every detail of that perfectly, domestic representation on People magazine. We as a society must move outside media influence and focus on political figures as our country’s leaders, not how cool the looked on Saturday Night Live last week. Let us challenge our neighbors to become sensible comprehensive citizens, and capture American politics out of People magazine and back in the hands of the American people.

Work Cited

Hollihan, Thomas. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns of the Media Age. 2nd. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2008. Print.

Sandra Westfall, . "Barack Obama Gives Daughter $1 Allowance a Week." People Magazine 23072008: 5. Print.