The Failures Of The Great American Political Campaign

When the general populace floods to the polls in huge numbers, it is nice when they are all adequately informed of the candidates’ platforms. Some of them are undoubtably more informed than others. Some canvas a wide array of sources: television, print and online media. Other voters – indeed, the vast majority – rely on fewer sources. The traditional purpose of political campaigns is to raise awareness for the particular candidate, and to present his/her views. To distinguish candidate A from candidate B in other words.

Unfortunately, the function of political campaigns has changed significantly in recent years. Whereas before they were meant to inform and enlighten, now more often than not candidates simply run campaigns based on ambiguity, with the intent of tarnishing their opponents. Instead of trying to enlighten the voting populace on a variety of issues, the campaigns are now primarily involved in attracting certain, narrow special interest groups. At the risk of alienating powerful voting blocs – the elderly, the wealthy, miscellaneous large corporate interests – the politicians either cater directly to these same groups, or they create purposely vague stances that are totally noncommittal.

Thus, the voters are obfuscated and can’t determine which candidate would best serve their interests. This is the single largest failing of today’s political campaigns. They fail to adequately distinguish the candidates from each other.

This is one major reason for such dismal voter turn out year after year: the seemingly endless stream of carbon-copy politicians. The political campaigns of today’s politician are ambiguous messes. The voters see no difference between the candidates. In Bulworth, at the beginning, the politician starts every speech with some garbage about standing at the beginning of a new millennium (paraphrasing). The voters look at this statement, and are bewildered. “So what,” I can imagine them asking. Yet this type of vague campaigning continues, unabated.

Other failings of the modern political campaign are the continual exploitation of negative campaigning, and the extent to which money ensures success. In The Candidate, the candidate puts out pointless tv ads that simply exhort how young he is, compared to the incumbent. What bearing does this have on anything? The people who watch these ads, are they more informed of the issues now? Is the winning candidate going to enter a beauty contest post-election?

Negative campaigning now plays an important part in every election. The exclusion of any third candidates in the majority of state and federal elections also helps to make negative campaigning particularly effective, as was illustrated in class. When there is a third candidate, he/she generally benefits by not succumbing to mud-slinging. The voters see the two politicians who are tarnishing each other’s reputation, and are disgusted. Thankfully, most elections in the U.S. are two-horse affairs.

Yet even with these sloppy, ambivalent campaigns, they apparently do aid the politician in ascending to the throne. There has been a startling trend in recent years in that whichever politician raises more money, will win the election. So although today’s political campaign relies mostly on obfuscating the candidate’s platform, catering to a few, specific special interests, and slandering the opponent, it is apparently a winning formula. Whoever gets in the last negative tv ad will win. Thus I find it hard to believe that this dismal campaign process will change anytime soon.

The political campaigns of America do not achieve their suggested aims. Scarcely any factual information is presented. Instead of being able to peruse carefully selected positions on the issues, the voting public are generally able to only distinguish the position of the candidate on a few, specific, media-selected topics. We are expected to then go to the polls and select a candidate based on five second sound clips. With the dismal voter turn-out in America, political campaigns should be trying to reach out to those who are disenfranchised, focusing on a larger variety of issues, ones that would affect those who don’t vote. That is where they should be campaigning, and this is where the political campaign process in America is failing the most.