IT'S ALL Arnold. After weeks and months of campaign feeding frenzies, the likeness of the Austrian-born mega-celebrity has been burned into the retina of the nation's media enterprise. If ever one questioned the role of the news media as the predominant interface between state-wide and national political candidates and the voting public, the debate was firmly put to bed during the media circus that was the California recall election. No longer can the two political parties claim to frame the debate, establish platforms or select candidates. In today's political climate, money talks, but if the media isn't listening, the public won't either.
When did the media abandon the role of watchdog? It is unlikely that the same institution, the so-called fourth estate of politics, can purport to present political reporting to the public in an objective product while simultaneously competing for declining newspaper readership, increased network news viewership or a larger share in the increasingly competitive cable news industry. When does analysis become editorial, and in what part of the paper should it appear?
Many would acknowledge that the contemporary media does a lackluster job of offering political information for general public consumption without some form of comparison to historical context or analysis of the impact it will have on the current political landscape. In addition to this analysis, there is a heavy weight given to political news of the scandalous variety. The American public has demonstrated in the past two decades a hearty appetite for political misdeeds and malpractice. While the media has an interest in pursuing the public disclosure of inappropriate behavior on behalf of public officials, this bias necessitates a reexamination of the role the media now plays in campaigns and elections.
Because the media now fills the role previously filled by political parties, the moderating influence of these parties that was created by consensus-building within the organization has been removed from the process. Because the media now crowns the new public darling, special interests drive the debate, and the thirst for a juicy scandal precipitates coverage.
These forces are clearly visible in the current campaign for president. Though the Democratic Convention, much less the general election, is many months away, the two party front-runners have long been established by media tracking of the "horse race." Most would place former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean -- though conservative on a few key issues -- to the left of the balance of Democratic hopefuls. George W. Bush, however, is quickly moving to the right of his ideological mean as of the 2000 election.
This is a curious phenomenon. The gap between candidates is growing. The most likely hypothesis is the move of special interests to the extremes of the ideological spectrum, which tugs the candidates to the poles. This alienates moderate voters in the middle, which is where some political scientists say an increasing proportion of the public is moving ("Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam).
Within the political party, ideological extremists were forced to do battle with moderating forces at nominating conventions or via more subtle means. The result was two candidates closer to the center, encompassing a larger base of the voting public. Many argue that today, candidates sprint to regain the center during the general election, after securing the required funding they need in the nominating season. This neglects to account for Bush's retreat to the right, despite his monopoly on conservative ideologues.
By usurping the role of the party in elections, the media has moved in as the requisite interface between candidate and voter. For example, Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno instead of a nominating convention of well-minded Republicans. Behold the new paradigm: Attention requires money, which begets cozying to special interests. By polarizing the two-party system so dramatically, more voters are left without a candidate who encompasses their moderate political perspective. Increased apathy and non-involvement are both symptoms of this frightening phenomenon.
Friends of Madisonian republicanism (little R) beware. The California recall is only a taste of the circus that politics might become. It leads us to hope that the Supreme Court overturns the new campaign finance restrictions, but alas, that is fodder for a future column.
(Preston Lloyd's column appears Thursdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 16 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
