The year two thousand eight is one of special historical significance to the citizens of the United States.  For the first time ever an African-American has been elected president.  During the campaign leading up to Barack Obama’s victory on November 4^th, a campaign race of hugely improbable proportions took place.  In this marathon were many competitors including a man peering dangerously over the parapet of dotage, a first term mayor turned governor from Alaska that is neither elderly nor a man, and a seasoned senate veteran of foreign policy with the brightest smile anywhere.  The marathon was often times characterized by criticism and support of many of the candidate’s financial decisions – most notably the refusal of public financing on part of the Democratic candidates.  The manifestation of these fiscal decisions was nowhere more evident to American’s than on the television, where campaign advertisements flooded airways and living rooms.  The voters this year were influenced, inspired, enraged, and enchanted by these advertisements; such was also the case in the 1950’s.

            Historians often times use the metaphor of a camera’s lens to apply knowledge of yesterday to understand today.  By looking at today’s election, through a camera’s lens manufactured of the glass elements of the 1950’s, one is better equipped to understand the nature of American politics on television.

            The 1950’s were a decade of peace and prosperity for the United States.  They came to personify the tireless American spirit in a world recovering from one of the greatest travesties in recent history, World War II.  Politically the 1950’s were an era of conservatism, for the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 marked the first republican to take the White House since Herbert Hoover left office during the depression.  The president wasn’t all that was changing in the fifties though, a culture of fear with a seemingly insatiable appetite for consumption cared about new things: technology, television.  American’s were eager to be persuaded by the glitz and glamour, ready to consume.  Harland Cleveland, executive editor of the Reporter commented,  “we’re selling the president like toothpaste.”  Do the campaign television advertisements of the elections of 1952 and 1956 reflect the gloss of American life during that era?  This question is best understood from three points of view, or focal lengths.  A zoom camera lens is able to look at subjects in three different ways: wide-angle, telephoto, and macro.  Each of these lengths has a particular purpose photographically: landscapes, portraits, and details.  Historically campaign advertisement can be studied in a similar fashion: the issues, the representation of each candidate, and the format.  The issues provide a social and cultural context for the politics of the time, a wide-angle landscape.  The representation of each candidate varies from advertisement to advertisement, but nevertheless portray a particular agenda or emotion, this is similar to a headshot portrait at a telephoto range.  Thirdly, when the format of advertisements is examined, the macro details reveal a truly intuitive view inside American life in the 1950’s.  Through a historical zoom lens, one will discover the sentiments of American life that are manifest in campaign advertisements.   

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/the-early-word-obama-opts-out-of-public-financing/?scp=6&sq=public%20finance&st=cse

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/mccain-says-yes-to-public-financing/?scp=7&sq=public%20finance&st=cse

Now that the election is over, most are focusing their attention on Obama’s transition to the white house.  This transition will be marked considerably by the careful selection of a cabinet.  Press will no doubt pay careful attention to Obama’s decision making in the next weeks and months.  People have in the past two days spoken rhetoric along the lines of “what will they do now” and “the win is great but its time to get to work.”  While a bit obnoxious, that will be the focus for at least the immediate future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06expect.html?ref=politics

http://www.slate.com/id/2203909/

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/26/joseph_biden/

A bit of juicy gossip will also be the focus of post-election news focused on McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin. 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/2

(WTF, she was actually selected by McCain and the GOP!)

What shocked me was that a couple weeks later, Joe is still a hot item.  The article catalogued the lengths to which the RNC embraced his blue collarness.  In fact their is a youtube like site where one can post their own Joe videos that may eventually make their way onto a commercial.  Bizarre.  What shocked me was the glanced over economic mumbo jumbo that was included with interviews of plumbers. The rhetoric wasn’t all too different that the usual economic savvy and concern that most American’s have – which consists of a disillusioned understanding of tax policy and their presumed cosmic consequences.

I’m not sure where I was going with this (I left for a snack and came back), but I can sum up with this: I am surprised at the desperation in past week of the republicans.  It started with Joe, and was continued by charades like Sarah Palin actually appearing on SNL. I think their campaign is silly, and so was the Daily Record article. Thats all.

The answer is yes, to both questions.  Public financing is funded by our government, but where do they get their cash? In this case Ben Bernake isn’t just printing money and giving it to candidates for their campaigns disposal.  No, the money comes from the taxpayers. This is wasteful, especially when one could just contribute to the candidate that he or she feels passionate for, opposed to a kitty.

Obama is buying his presidency, but it is with money from individuals that support him.  In a way, Barack Obama’s supporters are buying his presidency.  This is not only efficient for our national spending budget, but also for supporters – it works.  

I am excited to see more candidates in the future cast away public financing for the more effective private system. Good choice Obama.

In the past two weeks, American’s have experienced a different John McCain. The direct, trustworthy, seasoned senator from Arizona has been transformed into a crass orator of negativity.  His attacks on Barack Obama have hurt his ratings in the polls.  The New York Times reported that more Americans now trust the relatively inexpirienced Barack Obama than McCain.  Citing his choice of Sarah Palin for a running mate and negative jargon in both speech and advertisement form, voters are fed up.

The backdrop is gloomy.  An economic crisis, war, and distrust of the government, voters will go to the polls in three weeks.  What will shape their decisions? Negative attacks, or solid plans? Perhaps the debate this evening will highlight some greater differences or similarities in attack plans for Washington – how to fix what Bush (recent polls show his approval rating at a near historical low) has broken.

The dogma is that the first approach may, almost invariably, produce a better paper, but is irrelevant if it is not turned in on time because it wont count. However the second approach will produce a paper turned in on time, that meets the prescribed requirements by the College. So which approach is better, which is better if there was no prescribed due date?

This is the situation in Iraq.  The American public is faced with two candidates, one for a scheduled removal of combat troops, the other for a continued presance until victory, or situation permits for combat troops to be removed. 

Barack Obama is the schedule candidate.  He proposes a 16 month time-table the will end the war, or at least America’s combat involvement.  The good side of this approach is that it gets American men and women out of harms way, and shifts responsibility to the US trained Iraqi forces and government of their own country.  The problem is that insurgency me reemerge.  

John McCain favors a more thorough approach that favors reactionary decisions based on winning.  He wants to make sure that the US’s progress in past years is not lost.  The benefit of this plan is that American forces thoroughly finish the job that they began 5 years ago.  The problem, let me emphasize that word PROBLEM with this plan is that it offers no end in sight.  American men and women are still in harms way, and continue to undermine the Iraqi’s ability to govern and patrol their own nation.

I personally prefer Obama’s approach for historical reasons. Vietnam, a war on an “ism” personified by the Viet Cong, could have waged for many more months, many more lost lives, if the US wanted to “win.” However we left, counted our losses, and for the most part, everything was fine.

In reality, I think that both candidates will need to be more flexible with their plans in order to find a reasonable plan.

With every offensive attack from McCain, Obama would respond with defense, then attack.  Both acted, at times, arrogant with smug grins on their faces. Despite a slew of questions about the war and other “problems” in the middle-east, neither candidate answered the questions – I really can’t begin to try to summarize their points they were so vague. They both get a “D.”

Now the good. I felt that both candidates acted rhetorically very presidential at times.  Barack Obama’s first response was well structured and articulated. For him, the offensive, the times when he can think before he speaks are his forte.  Converselly, McCain was graceful with his redirects when he was seemingly backed into a corner.

They both are tied with unsatisfactory grades. I cannot wait for Thursday when Biden and Palin square off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP12aNzocSc

Read This:

Sarah Palin is a politician, a governor, and I take her seriously – she does after all, hold public office. That being said I am terrified at the prospect of her being the (vice)-President. I feel like I am being bullied into voting for the democrats based on my fear of her.

With a tenacious “pugnatious” attitude in the debates, McCain is certainly the more expirienced of the pair.  The Times asserted that he would rely on rhetoric, shaped by his expirience as a POW, focused on foreign policy.  Barack Obama, was criticized for his round about verbose responses to foreign policy questions about terrorism in the primary debates.  The feeling I got was he needs to quit “flying like a butterfly” he needs to learn how to attack (“sting like a bee…” great analogy in the article).  

Speaking as a citizen of a relatively conservative small town in Ohio, I would agree with the Times assesment of Obama’s rhetoric.  For the blue collar majority, rhetoric or philosophy do not put more savings in the bank or ease their minds about terrorism.

I am especially excited to see the debate Friday on the topic of Foreign Policy.  Mostly because I want to see how good this article was at predicting the outcome, and also cross checking Biden’s rhetoric from the Ralley here at Wooster.  I believed that Biden made some interesting valid points about the US’s reputation around the world, and it will be exciting to see how Obama echoes or refutes these claims.