The Spectacle of Politics

A big difference I've noticed in the political culture of the United States and my own country, is that there's a lot of spectacle to politics in the US. In the US, public speeches and rallies are commonplace, public celebrity endorsements are everywhere, there's multiple televised debates that people actually sit down and watch, candidates make lots of tv appearances and there's a long road to the elections that the media is glued to. Here it's much more subdued. There's campaign ads on tv and the occasional interview but that's about it.

I can't help but think that the US, despite it's rather messed up system (imo), gets this part right. The spectacle surely gets the public more involved in the election process. What are your thoughts on this? How would you like to see nations going about the lead up to their elections?

One of the pillars of democracy is an educated public and public awareness of social and economic issues. While media bias is very evident, at the very least, citizens can witness events as they occur and for what they are. Social media spreads studies, information, and news. Voters need to know as much as possible about each candidate, the issues, the candidate's positions on issues, the facts and myths, etc. Technology, public and televised speeches, rallies, endorsements, etc only serve to increase awareness. It creates excitement for political processes, which encourages research and provides a forum for public discussion.

To me, it only makes common sense for there to be such a "spectacle" under a democratic system.

I'm a bit torn. The American Way of Life when it comes to politics just seems like it would exhaust me after two months of living in the country during an election season, but at the same time, I wish New Zealand politics would have some of that fire, let alone during an election season. While the sheer extravagance and length of the election season is something I abhor in American politics, it comes from a place of genuine passion. People care, they get involved, they make enough of a ruckus to actually force politicians to be answerable to their people, even if it's only ever lipservice. New Zealand politicians don't even bother with lipservice because they know the public will forget in 48 hours.

My biggest gripe with this country has always been the complacency of the general public - while apathy is to be expected anywhere, it's especially prominent here because of the arrogant attitude that a) any sort of interest in politics, local or national, is something to mock because it's 'trying too hard' and b) there's nothing to worry about because 'Nu Zillund could neeeeever be as bad as Americuh'. It drives me insane because these people get mad at John Key (our prime minister) for pulling a fast one on them and then not even two days later, the furore is over because no one cares to follow it up. Like... if Obama made a prison rape joke on the radio, the swift condemnation would be something to behold. Our prime minister does such a thing and he grows in popularity because no one cares enough to push him past the initial soundbite.

I just want people here to care even 20% as much as they do in America.

It's always a good thing to have an informed populace for major voting decisions, so you certainly want the information on public display via easily accessible means like TV debates and such.

It's just that you kinda want said populace to be educated so they can make actually good use of the information being supplied, otherwise it sorta becomes a little pointless and needlessly long.

Unfortunately, most Americans take mainstream news and twitter as viable sources despite being incredibly biased. They don't do their research and they vote for whom/what they like, not whom/what is a better choice. This also doesn't prevent lies and tricks and deceit to seep down through the cracks when huge companies pour huge chunks of money to 'educate you' on the issues at hand.

Yeah, it's a fine line. You want an informed voting public, but you also want an engaged voting public. Sometimes it seems you can't have both at the same time.

If not enough people vote, however informed those few voters are, then the dreaded "special interests" like lobbyists have more say or bad politicians can get elected too easily, which is obviously bad for democracy. But if a whole bunch of easy swayed people who don't have much knowledge vote then you have a similar result through different means.

So, like, imagine a presidential debate where the candidates get to sit down with notes and figures and examples of policy proposals like they'd do if they were actually in office hashing out legislation. That would be a lot more informative, but not at all flashy or entertaining or engaging to most people.

To me the solution is to cut out the misinformation and the spin. Get money out of politics. All the adds and news coverage does increase awareness, yeah. but I'd argue it doesn't increase understanding of issues very much. We'd be better off with neutral, non-partisan information centers as the main source and then let all the spin and arguing come after that. Too often we turn first toward biased sources and while that's great for revving people up and making them excited about issues, I don't think it's good for democracy long-term.

Esper said:

Yeah, it's a fine line. You want an informed voting public, but you also want an engaged voting public. Sometimes it seems you can't have both at the same time.

If not enough people vote, however informed those few voters are, then the dreaded "special interests" like lobbyists have more say or bad politicians can get elected too easily, which is obviously bad for democracy. But if a whole bunch of easy swayed people who don't have much knowledge vote then you have a similar result through different means.

So, like, imagine a presidential debate where the candidates get to sit down with notes and figures and examples of policy proposals like they'd do if they were actually in office hashing out legislation. That would be a lot more informative, but not at all flashy or entertaining or engaging to most people.

To me the solution is to cut out the misinformation and the spin. Get money out of politics. All the adds and news coverage does increase awareness, yeah. but I'd argue it doesn't increase understanding of issues very much. We'd be better off with neutral, non-partisan information centers as the main source and then let all the spin and arguing come after that. Too often we turn first toward biased sources and while that's great for revving people up and making them excited about issues, I don't think it's good for democracy long-term.

Click to expand...

Have you heard of Public Choice Theory? While those are good solutions, they do not go far enough. We need to change the incentives that gave rise to these problems in the first place.