Let me start out by saying that I don’t believe that separation of church and state exists, and it’s possible that it never has. Originally, separation of church and state was created for the benefit of the church. With a longstanding history in England dating back to the early Middle Ages of the King and his government having their hand in all of the church’s affairs and manipulating the church to get what they wanted, the united States’ forefathers wrote the language into the constitution to allow the church to be able to flourish without the hand of the government forcing them into anything. Since then however, it is my contention that the church has had an influence in politics, whether it was trying to or not.
In the beginning of our country’s history, the influence of the church was subtle. As early as 1815, there is evidence that Thomas Jefferson used religious principles to help in his judgment in making good laws for the United States. His quote as shown in class from a letter to P.H. Wendover read “Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted,” showing his faith in religion to help guide him in his writing of the Declaration of Independence. Today, it could be argued that religion is the driving force behind the stance of literally every politician in America on social policies. For the religious right, the relationship is easy to see. Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who was a Baptist Minister, has made no bones about his religious and moral objections to abortion, even likening it to slavery during the Civil War (http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mike_Huckabee_Abortion.htm). Seeing the ties to Christianity and how they relate to stances on things like abortion and gay rights are easy to see. What can be confusing is how the stances of atheists on these issues relate to the topic of religion. While there is only one openly atheist congressman in the United States, House democrat Pete Stark, he has perhaps the most notoriously pro-choice stance in the House, even voting ‘no’ on the ban of partial-birth abortions (http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Pete_Stark.htm). In addition, Stark is at the forefront of the gay rights movement in America, even going so far as to propose a bill that would cut off federal funding to any adoption agency that held a stance against same-sex couples adoptions (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/10/rep-pete-stark-introduces-antidiscrimination-adoption-bill.html). Although no politician would ever admit this, his radical views that are in staunch opposition to the religious right’s own radical views can reasonably be seen as directly influencd by religion, or in this case a lack-thereof. In addition, the fact that any politicians claiming to be Christians who share views similar to Stark’s are subjected to a constant barrage of questions inquiring as to the legitimacy of their faith and their justifications for voting against what Christianity views as a human right to life is further proof of religion’s influence on social views in the United States.
The reserve readings for this course on political rhetoric and religion give us clues on the influence of religion on politics and its rise in recent years. The Family Research Council, founded in 1983, is an organization that was founded on promoting marriage, the family, and the right to life as a national policy (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC). A quick glance at this organization’s website swiftly expels any notion that this is purely a religious group, with videos showing members of Congress promoting their views and even their logo sporting the U.S. Capital Building. Their history shows that they have partnered with Focus on the Family on a number of issues, and even talk about James Dobson’s work with President Jimmy Carter as a starting point to their organization. Similarly, Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family website shows their commitment to social policies through links showing their views on issues like the right to life, definition of marriage, and even a Social Issues link defining views on things ranging from pornography, to gambling, even to abstinence and education. Indeed Dobson seems to be a critical figure in the religious right’s movement to get their voices heard in Washington. The Boston Globe’s article on Dobson as standing “in the vanguard of a crusade by evangelical Christians to place their agenda at the forefront of public debate over presidential and congressional elections, judicial appointments, gay marriage, and the ''life issues" of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research” (https://ramct.colostate.edu/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct). Dobson even stepped down as board chairman of Focus on the Family earlier this year, with the intention to make his ‘crusade’ even more politically oriented (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/27/dobson.steps.down/index.html).
On the other side of the coin, Jim Wallis heads the movement of religious progressives in the United States. In our class readings, an interview with Wallis revealed that he believes that the religious right defines moral values in only the most narrow terms, focusing on “wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage” (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/03/gods-politics-interview-jim-wallis). Wallis would like to see Christians focus more on issues like poverty. In another video interview we watched of Wallis in class, he really pushes the poverty issue, insisting time and time again that the Bible has literally hundreds of verses pertaining to this issue. He also argues in this written interview linked above that while he doesn’t agree with the zealots on the right, the left does not seem comfortable with the rhetoric of religion. Wallis and others claim that Catholics and other Christian denominations are not in the pocket of the religious right, but democrats seem to have no idea on how to reach that audience (https://ramct.colostate.edu/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct). The funny thing is he does not seem all that comfortable with religious rhetoric when pushed on the issue of abortion. In his TV interview, he avoids the question of abortion time and time again when posed by his interviewer (I would post the interview, but I don’t see it linked anywhere on our class page and unfortunately I would have no idea how to look it up, as I don’t know the network it was on or the interviewer). Wallis and other religious progressives such as the Sojourners hold other values as human rights, such as the right to health care and answers to poverty (http://www.sojo.net/).
Last but not least, it just wouldn’t be a blog without a little bit of my own opinion to finish it off. I think that it’s important to note that a very important piece of rhetoric used on both sides of this debate is a simple phrase; “Human Right.” I would just like to point out that in a literal sense this phrase does not mean anything. What one considers to be a ‘human right’ is completely subjective. In political rhetoric this phrase more than anything seems to be a ‘buzz word’ or ‘catch-phrase’ that politicians and pundits attach to an issue that they would like the people to believe that there is only one way to see the issue. I could say that ‘eating meat is a human right’ or that ‘having a front porch is a human right,’ but that doesn’t make it true (in fact it would be downright ridiculous). So I guess my point in this is to be careful as political ‘consumers’ what you believe when you hear someone thumping their views on a certain issue as a human right. Instead, ask whether or not it is good for the country and its people, and ignore the puffery that goes along with any issue.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The New Age of Politics Online
This blog’s topic of “Politics Online” ties in quite nicely to a previous blog posting of mine about political news and advertising. The world of politics has used the age of technology to create new forums to reach out to new demographics and attempt to relate to more and more voters. These efforts have seen mixed results for candidates across the board, and there have been other repercussions of using the internet as a medium for getting messages out and names heard. In this blog I will discuss the internet as a medium for politics, its effect on political campaigns, and news media’s contributions and accessibility online.
Hollihan describes the internet as “a global computer network that enables users to send email, other forms of text messages, graphics, and video” (Hollihan, 199). With 88% of Americans aged 18-29 years old identifying themselves as internet users (ibid, 200), politicians would be crazy not to try and appeal to this demographic, which statistically has been the least active in terms of voter turnout, and historically has been labeled apathetic towards politics. In other words, to politicians this was an almost completely untapped group of potential voters that could sway the outcome of any election if only they felt that they had a reason to show up. The medium for these politicians to best communicate the issues that they feel are the most pertinent to this demographic is the internet. In addition, the low-cost of using the internet allows campaigns that would otherwise be little more than a footnote during an election to instead be able to connect with their grassroots support and become a very real contender for elected positions. Today some of the most common ways of getting through to young adults on the internet are posting videos on youtube.com, mass messages to anyone with an email address, and even enlisting friends through facebook, a social networking site used primarily (and up until the last year or two, almost exclusively) by the young adult demographic. All of these techniques were not only prevalent, but vital to success in the 2008 election, and if a candidate were to refuse to cater to this new medium, they would be ridden off almost immediately (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html).
The internet has been a vital part of political campaigns since 1990, when candidates started using email to convey campaign messages (Hollihan, 201). But when Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota using a campaign where almost two-thirds of his total funding was generated through the internet, that was when the internet really took off (ibid, 201). In 2008, Ron Paul’s campaign would have been over before it had even begun, but his fierce opposition to the war in Iraq and radical thoughts on abolishing the Federal Reserve were a hit among libertarian insiders. This underground popularity led to internet videos and reviews of Paul’s policies, and ultimately kept his presidential race alive. His campaign in fact would eventually have a day where over $4 million was raised, a record among Republican candidates that year, most of which had far more widespread and vocal followings than Paul’s (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html).
Another benefit of the internet in campaigns is the quick and comprehensive spread of information. In an age where ‘negative’ and ‘smear’ campaign ads are so prevalent (and effective), it is important for candidates to get their side of a story heard in order to keep the damage done by the smears to a minimum. The internet allows for any candidate to issue a statement or a position and know that the entire world will have access to it in a matter of minutes. This was prevalent in the Clinton vs. Dole campaign in 1996 where both candidates engaged in a game of one-ups-manship via emailed responses to supporters, media, and undecided voters. This is one strategy of the internet that can backfire, however. Dyson comments that in this age “politicians and pundits give instant rather than considered reactions” (Hollihan, 202), which may entice voters, but is certainly not always what candidates would prefer.
Another way that internet media in campaigning may have a negative impact on candidates is the access that the new age of technology creates for the general public. Any indiscretion by a candidate at any time can be caught on camera, and with camera phones and internet phones that are on the market today, that indiscretion can be posted online in mere minutes, instantly damaging credibility. That’s just today, but a frightening prospect looms on the horizon as well. Possibly within the next ten years, and certainly within the next fifteen, we will have a presidential candidate who had a profile on facebook during their college days, and pictures of them will still be out there. And unless that candidate lived under a rock, many of those pictures will probably be less than ‘presidential.’ At that point, the question will have to be asked whether or not the United States can deal with physical evidence that their president was once a kid too, or will they resort to simply electing the most sheltered candidate.
The internet has also allowed us to access political news online 24 hours a day. While the proportion of people who read a newspaper on a daily business has been steadily declining for years, the number of people who go online to get their daily news has climbed to 31% by 2004, rapidly approaching the numbers of daily newspaper readers (Hollihan, 209). 57% of people went online for election coverage during the 2004 campaigns, up from 4% in the 1996 elections, and 25% of the total adult population reported that they learned something online that influenced how they would vote that November (ibid, 209). Most of the time we would see this as a good thing and access to all kinds of information is never bad, but the question must be raised as to the quality of information that has been sought and attained via the internet in recent years. My blog on the concept of infotainment in the news media suggested that most of the major outlets online for political coverage have extreme biases towards one side of the aisle or the other, and yet a simple Google search for ‘political news’ pulls up CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News (the top three major infotainment outlets with complaints about party biases) in the top five results. Perhaps more startling is the fact that The Onion, a political satire newspaper, was also on the first page. While Americans would like to believe they are more informed as a result of the accessibility of news media online, the sad truth is that most Americans are simply getting the spin on issues that a particular party wants them to hear, and without digging a little bit deeper in search of unbiased information, most of them will take this information as true facts upon which to base their votes, a scary proposition.
As you can see, the subject of politics online has become vastly popular in recent years, and the potential for better-informed voters and an unprecedented number of options in candidates to vote for thanks to the wide availability of visibility over the internet is astounding. But the potential for abuse is also frightening, with lies and spin running rampant across cyberspace. Once again, this new availability of technology comes with new responsibilities for the American public, and we must work harder to find good sources of information and be careful of what we believe that is found online, as well as increase awareness of the dangers of believing everything online for those who may not have the ability to discover these things for themselves.
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
Hollihan describes the internet as “a global computer network that enables users to send email, other forms of text messages, graphics, and video” (Hollihan, 199). With 88% of Americans aged 18-29 years old identifying themselves as internet users (ibid, 200), politicians would be crazy not to try and appeal to this demographic, which statistically has been the least active in terms of voter turnout, and historically has been labeled apathetic towards politics. In other words, to politicians this was an almost completely untapped group of potential voters that could sway the outcome of any election if only they felt that they had a reason to show up. The medium for these politicians to best communicate the issues that they feel are the most pertinent to this demographic is the internet. In addition, the low-cost of using the internet allows campaigns that would otherwise be little more than a footnote during an election to instead be able to connect with their grassroots support and become a very real contender for elected positions. Today some of the most common ways of getting through to young adults on the internet are posting videos on youtube.com, mass messages to anyone with an email address, and even enlisting friends through facebook, a social networking site used primarily (and up until the last year or two, almost exclusively) by the young adult demographic. All of these techniques were not only prevalent, but vital to success in the 2008 election, and if a candidate were to refuse to cater to this new medium, they would be ridden off almost immediately (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html).
The internet has been a vital part of political campaigns since 1990, when candidates started using email to convey campaign messages (Hollihan, 201). But when Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota using a campaign where almost two-thirds of his total funding was generated through the internet, that was when the internet really took off (ibid, 201). In 2008, Ron Paul’s campaign would have been over before it had even begun, but his fierce opposition to the war in Iraq and radical thoughts on abolishing the Federal Reserve were a hit among libertarian insiders. This underground popularity led to internet videos and reviews of Paul’s policies, and ultimately kept his presidential race alive. His campaign in fact would eventually have a day where over $4 million was raised, a record among Republican candidates that year, most of which had far more widespread and vocal followings than Paul’s (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html).
Another benefit of the internet in campaigns is the quick and comprehensive spread of information. In an age where ‘negative’ and ‘smear’ campaign ads are so prevalent (and effective), it is important for candidates to get their side of a story heard in order to keep the damage done by the smears to a minimum. The internet allows for any candidate to issue a statement or a position and know that the entire world will have access to it in a matter of minutes. This was prevalent in the Clinton vs. Dole campaign in 1996 where both candidates engaged in a game of one-ups-manship via emailed responses to supporters, media, and undecided voters. This is one strategy of the internet that can backfire, however. Dyson comments that in this age “politicians and pundits give instant rather than considered reactions” (Hollihan, 202), which may entice voters, but is certainly not always what candidates would prefer.
Another way that internet media in campaigning may have a negative impact on candidates is the access that the new age of technology creates for the general public. Any indiscretion by a candidate at any time can be caught on camera, and with camera phones and internet phones that are on the market today, that indiscretion can be posted online in mere minutes, instantly damaging credibility. That’s just today, but a frightening prospect looms on the horizon as well. Possibly within the next ten years, and certainly within the next fifteen, we will have a presidential candidate who had a profile on facebook during their college days, and pictures of them will still be out there. And unless that candidate lived under a rock, many of those pictures will probably be less than ‘presidential.’ At that point, the question will have to be asked whether or not the United States can deal with physical evidence that their president was once a kid too, or will they resort to simply electing the most sheltered candidate.
The internet has also allowed us to access political news online 24 hours a day. While the proportion of people who read a newspaper on a daily business has been steadily declining for years, the number of people who go online to get their daily news has climbed to 31% by 2004, rapidly approaching the numbers of daily newspaper readers (Hollihan, 209). 57% of people went online for election coverage during the 2004 campaigns, up from 4% in the 1996 elections, and 25% of the total adult population reported that they learned something online that influenced how they would vote that November (ibid, 209). Most of the time we would see this as a good thing and access to all kinds of information is never bad, but the question must be raised as to the quality of information that has been sought and attained via the internet in recent years. My blog on the concept of infotainment in the news media suggested that most of the major outlets online for political coverage have extreme biases towards one side of the aisle or the other, and yet a simple Google search for ‘political news’ pulls up CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News (the top three major infotainment outlets with complaints about party biases) in the top five results. Perhaps more startling is the fact that The Onion, a political satire newspaper, was also on the first page. While Americans would like to believe they are more informed as a result of the accessibility of news media online, the sad truth is that most Americans are simply getting the spin on issues that a particular party wants them to hear, and without digging a little bit deeper in search of unbiased information, most of them will take this information as true facts upon which to base their votes, a scary proposition.
As you can see, the subject of politics online has become vastly popular in recent years, and the potential for better-informed voters and an unprecedented number of options in candidates to vote for thanks to the wide availability of visibility over the internet is astounding. But the potential for abuse is also frightening, with lies and spin running rampant across cyberspace. Once again, this new availability of technology comes with new responsibilities for the American public, and we must work harder to find good sources of information and be careful of what we believe that is found online, as well as increase awareness of the dangers of believing everything online for those who may not have the ability to discover these things for themselves.
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. 2nd ed. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)