Inquiry Project Final Draft

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.