With the change of the mouth piece of a party to the media, have parties allowed themselves to be reduced to the oversimplified caricatured versions the media plays them out to be? It is one thing to be misrepresented, it is another to then conform to the misrepresentation. They certainty play the game of media, but do they, themselves believe they are what the media says?
a very good question, Nick. I don't have a full answer. The linkages between the parties and the electorate have been weakening for more than half a century, long before social media has taken up so much of the oxygen in the room. Any increase in the ways in which a candidate can bypass the Party to make a direct appeal to the voter, spells trouble for the Party's ability to shape electoral choices (such shaping is usually on the basis of significant social or economic issues and weakens the personal appeal of glorified candidates). Media misrepresentation of a Party is an interesting line of inquiry. Given that each party has extremes characters that make for better television that more bland regulars, the public image of the Party may be significantly directed toward the extremes. And for many in the electorate, change is valued, and the more extreme candidates offer less carefully defined change. Perhaps the Party simply follows in their wake.
I think, however, there is more to say. As our society becomes more and more complex, the number of identities, economic interests, ideological perspectives and perhaps most important the more policy space (credible ideas about the role and power of government), has multiplied. It seems to be much harder to give a Party a recognizable yet honest face. And so it has become more convenient to cover one's confusion or frustration with absurd and largely meaningless labels. It also makes the Party, at least in regard to the Republicans hide behind the skirts of its known "face." I am a Republican because I support Trump; I am not a Democrat because I hate "socialism." To be a Democrat often means anyone but Trump, and to know what one is actually supporting is near impossible because the Party seems all over the place with respect to policy, representing one and then another issue -- all actually important and critical for some faction with the Party.
Dr. Bing, very clear and well said. I understood all of it. Fascinating! So then, at a practical level, who is the party the electorate is voting for? If the extremes get the air time, and thus harbor the viewership, aka ‘winning over’ the electorate, does the vote of the electorate then conform the party to the extremes? Is it fair to say, that after all, the party is only a result of the electorate’s voting decisions? If, then, the electorate is only (and I know I’m oversimplifying a bit) voting for the extreme candidates, or the extreme representation, does the party, over time and multiple elections, become compromised of the extreme candidates, and ideologies? …. Like a slippery slope….This claim is also assuming the majority of Americans are not informed voters.
To the extent that candidates are chosen in party elections held in gerrymandered districts the likelihood of extremes taking over party officeholding and their faces becoming the face of the Party, yes. And you are right the media feed the fish in the bowl (so to speak). We've seen an almost indecent alliance between media and party, the distinction is blurred.
Sorry it’s taken so long to reply. Your perspective puts to words what I have seen but couldn’t describe. I agree and it seems the future (albeit idk a timeline), is one of polarization in which mixing of viewpoints becomes less and less and less. We are seeing it indecently, as you say well, with the media. How long before people relocate to tribal grounds?
Thanks for continuing to pursue a town hall. I always appreciate how you facilitate investigation of varying viewpoints.
With the change of the mouth piece of a party to the media, have parties allowed themselves to be reduced to the oversimplified caricatured versions the media plays them out to be? It is one thing to be misrepresented, it is another to then conform to the misrepresentation. They certainty play the game of media, but do they, themselves believe they are what the media says?
a very good question, Nick. I don't have a full answer. The linkages between the parties and the electorate have been weakening for more than half a century, long before social media has taken up so much of the oxygen in the room. Any increase in the ways in which a candidate can bypass the Party to make a direct appeal to the voter, spells trouble for the Party's ability to shape electoral choices (such shaping is usually on the basis of significant social or economic issues and weakens the personal appeal of glorified candidates). Media misrepresentation of a Party is an interesting line of inquiry. Given that each party has extremes characters that make for better television that more bland regulars, the public image of the Party may be significantly directed toward the extremes. And for many in the electorate, change is valued, and the more extreme candidates offer less carefully defined change. Perhaps the Party simply follows in their wake.
I think, however, there is more to say. As our society becomes more and more complex, the number of identities, economic interests, ideological perspectives and perhaps most important the more policy space (credible ideas about the role and power of government), has multiplied. It seems to be much harder to give a Party a recognizable yet honest face. And so it has become more convenient to cover one's confusion or frustration with absurd and largely meaningless labels. It also makes the Party, at least in regard to the Republicans hide behind the skirts of its known "face." I am a Republican because I support Trump; I am not a Democrat because I hate "socialism." To be a Democrat often means anyone but Trump, and to know what one is actually supporting is near impossible because the Party seems all over the place with respect to policy, representing one and then another issue -- all actually important and critical for some faction with the Party.
Dr. Bing, very clear and well said. I understood all of it. Fascinating! So then, at a practical level, who is the party the electorate is voting for? If the extremes get the air time, and thus harbor the viewership, aka ‘winning over’ the electorate, does the vote of the electorate then conform the party to the extremes? Is it fair to say, that after all, the party is only a result of the electorate’s voting decisions? If, then, the electorate is only (and I know I’m oversimplifying a bit) voting for the extreme candidates, or the extreme representation, does the party, over time and multiple elections, become compromised of the extreme candidates, and ideologies? …. Like a slippery slope….This claim is also assuming the majority of Americans are not informed voters.
To the extent that candidates are chosen in party elections held in gerrymandered districts the likelihood of extremes taking over party officeholding and their faces becoming the face of the Party, yes. And you are right the media feed the fish in the bowl (so to speak). We've seen an almost indecent alliance between media and party, the distinction is blurred.
Sorry it’s taken so long to reply. Your perspective puts to words what I have seen but couldn’t describe. I agree and it seems the future (albeit idk a timeline), is one of polarization in which mixing of viewpoints becomes less and less and less. We are seeing it indecently, as you say well, with the media. How long before people relocate to tribal grounds?
Thanks for continuing to pursue a town hall. I always appreciate how you facilitate investigation of varying viewpoints.
Thanks for the comment