Lela Ali
English 1102
Argumentative Paper
Political
Debates and its Impact on Political Ideology
Every
four years, the American public turns to their television to watch two men in
suits stand behind podiums and “debate” about their platforms. These “debates”
are misnamed: each candidate answers a question in a sound bite. This is not
debating an issue, it is a TV-battle of spin and the winner is the candidate
who develops the most memorable “bites” on each issue discussed. Nevertheless, political
debates are among the most watched programs on television. Statistics have
shown that nearly 81 million people tuned in to watch the recent debates
between Romney and Obama (“Politics1”). This has to do with the assumption that
millions of Americans view these debates to learn more about political issues
as well as make a solid decision about a vote (“Campaign Strategies in
Political Debates”).
Although
political debates are a major source for voters to gather information, their
language does not always assist voters in making a solid decision
(“Politics1”). A voter’s political ideology is already set in stone just from
the environment in which they live in and political debates only confirm their
decisions. Therefore, the language of political debates does not have a major
role in shaping or changing a voter’s political ideology. If the language were
to impact any voters at all, it would impact those who have a third party
preference or those who are undecided.
The American public relies too heavily on their
surroundings to shape their political ideology. The public’s opinion or
attitude about politics is their function of values or ideologies. Political
scientists believe that an individual obtains their values and beliefs about
politics from nurture, not nature, which is a process known as political
socialization. (“Campaign Strategies in Political Debates”). There are special
agents of socialization that have the largest role in shaping political
ideology. These agents are most likely people or institutions that pass on
values and beliefs. The most influential agents would be family, school,
religious organizations, and political conditions (“The Moral Roots of Liberals
and Conservatives”). These agents surround an individual’s environment throughout
their lifetime. If an individual was raised in a Republican Household, they
would most likely have developed an ideology favoring the Republican Party by
the time they reached voting age. A similar process would be viewed by an individual
raised in a Democratic Household.
Voters
tend to turn away from informational resources and begin following bandwagon
effects, which is when individuals derive information from others (“Politics1”).
Social Scientist, Daniel Yankelovich describes this as the “royal road to
public judgment,” in which he explains to be people forming opinions by
weighing what they hear from others and going against their conviction (“Few Voters
Paying Attention to Fact-Checkers”). A simpler way to look at his explanation
is imagining voters comparing notes with each other, and then assessing the
views of others in terms of what makes sense to them, and about all they
consult their feelings and values. By the time presidential debates come across
American television, voters will most likely have already established their
political ideology and party preferences. This being the case, it would be very
difficult for the language of political debates to shape a voter’s political
ideology.
A
factor that is often reviewed by American voters is the economy of the United
States. The American public’s assumption that the president has a great impact
on the economy conveys that they do not pay great attention to U.S. politics.
The media plays an important role in the lack of political knowledge obtained
by the American public. In September of this year, Gallup poll stated that 60%
said they had either not very much trust or confidence or no trust at all in
the media to report the news (“Few Voters Paying Attention to Fact-Checkers”).
Instead of the public actually researching a candidate’s official website and
their platform, they turn to fact-checkers on media sites to base their
decision. These fact-checkers are actually distributed after each debate. They
might include the performance of each candidate, the certain targeted quotes
said by the candidates, and the topics discussed. Voters, however, will usually
only pay attention to fact-checkers from media sites that favor their political
ideology. This being the case, after a
debate, Democrats will most likely pay attention to fact-checkers from MSNBC
while Republicans will pay attention to fact-checkers from FOX news (“Few Voters
Paying Attention to Fact-Checkers”). The reason for this is because MSNBC is
seen to lean more towards Democratic views, while Fox is seen to lean towards
Republican views. Independent voters, however, may review fact-checkers from
CNN since it is known to have fewer biases than other news sites. This
implicates that almost all media sources are biased and will most likely favor
a particular political party.
Take
into consideration that even if voters don’t view fact-checkers, they still
watch the debates on the channels that favor their political values. After
months of talking about each other’s policies, the world finally got to see
Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney go face-to-face on the same
stage in three televised debates ahead of the 2012 U.S. election. After
Romney’s high performance in the first debate, one could observe the different
commentary reactions between MSNBC and Fox news. Chris Mathews on MSNBC was
assuring Democratic voters that Obama will do better in the next debate while
Greg Gutfeld was preaching about how Romney performed higher than many people’s
expectations. This portrays that the research voters conduct is only limited to
what they want to know and hear. The voters are not actually listening to the
language of the debate, but the language that is reassuring them about their
decision on the candidates, which is seen through the commentaries.
A
voter’s political knowledge or sophistication is not only influenced by the
media’s commentary, but also by its reference to political debates. A study was
conducted by Ohio State’s Ray Pingree, Louisiana State’s Rosanna Scholl, and
Ohio State’s Andrea Quenette in which a five-minute clip from a 2004 debate was
shown to 700 students (“Do Presidential Debates Really Matter”). A third of the
students read no news coverage; a third read “horse-race” coverage that framed
the debate as a competition between the candidates, and a third read
substantive coverage focused on the candidates’ policy differences (“Do
Presidential Debates Really Matter”). Pingree and his coauthors then asked the
students to write out a description of the debate. The study concluded that the
descriptions by students who read the substantive coverage contained the
greatest number of opinions with supporting evidence; whereas those who read the
“horse-race” wrote descriptions with much less substances (“Do Presidential
Debates Really Matter”). This suggests that the media can trivialize the
debate, making viewers less focused on policy, or they can focus on policy
themselves and re-center voter’s minds on it. The media’s strong influence gears
voters to view debates in terms of a competition between the candidates rather
than a discussion of issues and policies.
Voters’
experiences may vary during political debates depending on their own willingness
to listen to the language spoken. This brings back the point about the average
voter’s tendency to not pay attention to the language except to that they
expect to hear. The topics of debate voter’s usually pay attention to coincide
with the ideas of their partisan preferences as well as their personal
socio-economic status within society (“Politics1”). For instance, both
Democrats and Republicans will pay close attention to a topic regarding taxes,
but each would have completely opposing viewpoints. Their viewpoints regarding
this topic will be based on both their party affiliation as well as their
personal financial status. Take into
consideration that in the United States most Democrats are of the lower and
middle class population, while most Republicans are of the higher class
population (“Politics1”). This being the case, Democrats will usually want to
hear their candidate debating to increase taxes on families with higher incomes,
while Republicans will want to hear their candidate debating to keep tax rates
the same for all citizens. The history of presidential debates has shown that
voters will almost always hear what they expect from the candidate of their party
preference, which most of the time will confirm their decision on a vote. (“The
Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives”).
To
further my research on political debates and its impact on political ideology,
I conducted a study through a short survey I created on Facebook prior to the
2012 election. The survey was completed by a total of 10 random participants
after the third debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Based on the
demographic results of the survey, participants consisted of both male and
female genders that were of different age groups and ethnicities. Four of the
10 participants were Republican, three were Democrat, two were undecided, and
one was Independent. 90% of participants
who supported a political party all stated that their major influences were
either family or religious based. The remaining percentage did not claim to
have had any influences impacting their political beliefs because simply they
were undecided. They did, however, indicate that most of their personal values
and beliefs were influenced either through family or school. Even though the
U.S. has had lower voter turnout rates in the past, every person who completed
this survey said they watched every political debate and plan on voting in the
2012 presidential elections.
The
survey asked for each participant to write their thoughts about the political
debates and what impact they had on their vote. The Democratic and Republican
participants all indicated that the political debates were very amusing and did
not change their vote choice at all, but rather strengthened it. They all
either used the word “solid” or “confirm” to explain that the political debates
made them feel more confident about their vote. The two independents and the single
undecided participant stated that the political debates did not assist them in
establishing a vote, but it did help them gather more information about each party’s
platform. The undecided participant also included that the appearance and
presentation of the candidates assisted him/her in classifying weather they
were “presidential material” or not. This study acknowledges the idea that
political debates can easily confirm a voter’s decision, but can rarely shape a
person’s political ideology because it has already been set by more powerful
agents of influence.
Presidential
candidates do not expect to walk on stage and change a citizen’s vote, but they
do target those who are undecided or have no party affiliation. Political
scientists have pointed out that earlier debates are more powerful in terms of
voters learning about candidates (“Presidential Debates and their Effects”).
The most important debate, in terms of information acquisition, is the first
debate because it is held at a time when voters have less information at their
disposal and a larger share of voters are likely to be undecided. To the extent
that the debates are important in terms of persuasion, the format may slightly
favor the challenger, about whom the public knows less. The incumbent is less
likely to benefit from political debates because most voters are somewhat
familiar with his platform and characteristics as president. The challenger,
however, uses political debates to express his charisma to the audience. The
charisma of most candidates is not necessarily identified by the language of
debate, but more by the candidates own appearance. This is an opportunity
political scientist’s see for candidates to attract undecided and less-informed
voters (“Do Presidential Debates Really Matter”). The impact on those voters,
however, is based on their own willingness to pay attention to the candidates
during the time of debate. The Undecided
voters, who are interested and well-informed about U.S. politics, may have a
higher chance of being impacted by the language of political debates than those
who are not. Most undecided viewers, however, experience the debates making two
judgments: One, whether or not the candidate seems “big enough” to be
president; and two whether one of the candidates is a better choice
(“Presidential Debates and their Effects”).
Consider the first televised debate shown to
the American public in the 1960’s between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
Kennedy appeared calm and nerveless while Nixon was haggard-looking to the
point of sickness. Two Gallup polls suggest that after the debate, undecided voters
alone led Kennedy to move from 1 point behind Nixon to 3 points ahead
(“Presidential Debates and their Effects”). The reason for this could have
solely been Kennedy’s physical appearance, but it also could have been the
voter’s interest in the language of the debate, which again is based on the
voter’s willingness to pay attention.
A 2008 Gallup study found that between 1960 and 2004,
there were only two years where debates made a difference in actual votes.
Instead, the most common outcome of the presidential
debates is a
slight popularity bump. But that bump doesn’t necessarily translate into votes
(“Do Presidential Debates Really Matter”). The outcomes of the Kennedy vs. Nixon
debates, for instance, were unlikely to reoccur in the Obama vs. Romney debates
in the 2012 elections. The reason for this is that presidential candidates have
recently begun to be prepped for the debates that they rarely stray from their
topic points. Therefore, the language
presented during the debates is likely to be similar and not enough to pull a
voter in either direction. This conveys that publicity in debates creates
attention for the candidates and their platforms; it does not change a voter’s
political ideology.
The
specialization agents found in our surroundings shape political ideology;
therefore, making it very difficult for the language of debates to play any
role in our political beliefs. Although these agents work as uncontrollable
forces, voters must know how to limit their influences. Credible sources are
useful for gaining the knowledge to vote because they will not aim to
manipulate a voter to choose a candidate over another, but rather present
factual information on political matters. The power of political sophistication
will allow voters to be aware of the media’s negative influence as well as value
the language said by the candidate rather than their appearance. The American
public should be reminded of a point once made by Benjamin Franklin: “The U.S.
constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. The people,
however, have to catch up with it by their own political knowledge” (“Good
Reads”). When political sophistication
is balanced with ideology, voters will most likely gain an interest in the
language of political debates. This does not guarantee that a voter’s ideology
will be influenced, but it does give them the ability to effectively analyze
the language being debated.
Works
Cited
Bowman,
Karlyn. “Few Voters Pay Attention to New Breed of Fact-Checkers.” n.p. 18. Oct.
2012. Web. 28. Nov. 2012.
Franklin,
Benjamin. “Good Reads.” Chandler O, n.d.Web. 16. 2012.
Goethals,
George, and Michael Norton. “SPIN (AND PITCH) DOCTORS: Campaign Strategies in
Televised Political Debates.” JSTOR.org.
Vol 26, Nov.3. pp.227-248. Springer, 2004. Sep. Web. 15. Nov. 2012.
Gunzburger, Ron. “Politics1.” Gunzburger, 1997. Web.
16. Nov. 2012.
Jonathon
Haidt. “The moral roots of liberals and conservatives.” Online video clip. TED, Sep. 2008. Web. 15. Nov. 2012.
Sides,
John. “Do Presidential Debates Really Matter?” Sides, 20. Oct. 2012. Web. 28.
Nov. 2012.
Wihbey,
John. “Presidential debates and their effects: Research roundup.” n.p. 16. Oct. 2012. Web. 16. Nov. 2012.
