Week 10: Political Campaigning

Question 2:

The political process has been under considerable change since the introduction of
media technologies in the 20th century. This essay will discuss the driving forces in
the evolution of political campaigning, and will firstly look at the political process
before media took over, secondly the era after, and thirdly some of the implications.
The political landscape has changed considerably, and campaigning has shifted its
focus from party to candidate.

Johnson-Cartee & Copeland argue that to understand how modern political

campaigning has developed, one has to understand how the political process has
changed. They divide political history in two eras: the organizational politics era and
the media-age politics era. This is an extensive task, as the complexities and
relations between the two are intertwined and multifaceted. Looking alone at the
development of mass media in western society is a daunting enough task.
Nonetheless, the organizational politics era is characterized by a strong party-
affiliation and personal contact. According to Johnson-Cartee & Copeland, ‘party
identification determined how an individual would vote (Johnson-Cartee & Copeland
1997, p. 229).’ The party served as the primary link between the people and the
government. Citing DeVries & Tarrance, they claim that voters during the 40s voted
based on party allegiance, group allegiance, and assessment of the candidate’s
personality and consideration of issues. At this stage, they argue, newspapers were
the primary mass media, but common discourse was what they describe at a
‘parallelism stage (ibid, p. 229).’ The relationship between the two institutions was
beneficial for both parts, as their interests and success was determined by each
other. A political party’s views would be mirrored in a newspaper because the
political party’s constituency would loyally read that certain newspaper.

With the emergence of raising dissent among young people during the 60’s, with the
uprising of socialist movements, and above all – war, a political candidate’s
personality and issues associated with that candidate had exceeded party- and group
allegiance. According to Crotty & Jacobsen, by 1976 split ticket voting included about
25 % of all votes cast in the US (Johnson-Cartee & Copeland 1997, p. 229). With the
further development of media technologies and especially the introduction of
television, the public discourse of western society changed dramatically the political
landscape. The effect of television’s power to blur boundaries between the private-
and the public spheres meant that political communication had to accommodate the
private context in which public information was consumed. Candidates had to
establish relational connections among the electorate. This major difference from the
organizational politics era is perhaps the minimizing use of personal interaction by
political candidates. As most political communication was no longer produced or
consumed in situations where the majority of voters and politicians assemble, it is no
wonder party allegiance became less and less important. Personality and image now
reigns at the top of voters’ priorities when voting, but for political candidates, it
means they have to employ experts to create an image that will increase their
popularity.

Johnson-Cartee & Copeland thus argue that political consultants are now the
orchestrators of political life, where political candidates can bypass the political party
system (Johnson-Cartee & Copeland 1997, p. 231). Since campaigns now focus on
the individual candidate, and the candidate does not have to rely on party funding, it
means that money must be raised elsewhere. Welcome to the political landscape of
today. Campaigns are now financed through contributions, own personal wealth and
funding from government and political action committees. This also means that the
wealthier you are, the higher the chances are that you’ll succeed. From 1968 to
1976, US presidential campaign expenses increased over 250 % (Johnson-Cartee &
Copeland 1997, p. 231). This new environment has also changed how journalists
view themselves. Since party allegiance has been discarded, journalists now view
themselves as a vital link in the democratic process. Journalists now view themselves
as watchdogs, representing public interest rather than promoting a party program.
Johnson-Cartee & Copeland now argue that ‘the mass media serve as the main
linkage between people and government, and the mass media articulate interests to
the people, creating for them an interest agenda (ibid, p. 233).’

Conclusion
To summarise, it can be argued that the close knit relationship with politics and
media is ultimately what forced them apart. With the introduction of television came
a new era where newspapers would become more neutral and discourse would
become more private. Personality, image and personal wealth are factors that are
needed to succeed in politics, but at least newspapers have become more critical of
candidates since they now consider themselves as the main link between the
government and the people.

Bibliography:
Johnson-Cartee, K. & Copeland, G. (1997), “The evolution of Political Campaigning,” in Inside Political
Campaigns, Westport: Praeger