Your Country in 45 Seconds

Those of you watching the Democratic pre-Primary debates have no doubt been amused by the moderator’s now-familiar refrain: “Can you sum up your entire campaign in 45 seconds?”

What I find interesting is that the whole prospect of effective campaigning rests on the candidate’s ability to distill an entire platform down to a snappy bromide. And then deliver it on television.

Right? I mean, all we hear from both the media and congressional pundits is the banal obvious: the party’s breakthrough nominee will be the one that figures out how to provide a breakthrough message. So from the 11,346 pool of Democratic Presidential candidates (so angry at the Democratic National Office for the size of the letting the field of hopefuls get this big), one of them needs to have a snappy elevator pitch. It’s ridiculous. But understandable given that television is the primary media for reaching and coercing voters. You would think that the candidates and their campagn teams would recognize the need to concoct a memorable phrase and consistently use it, time and time again. Because everyone knows the majority of the American voting public doesn’t actually read up on the candidates and the issues. The voters want action-adventure politics served up in a miniaturized matinee.

Those of you watching the Democratic pre-Primary debates have no doubt been amused by the moderator’s now-familiar refrain: “Can you sum up your entire campaign in 45 seconds?”

What I find interesting is that the whole prospect of effective campaigning rests on the candidate’s ability to distill an entire platform down to a snappy bromide. And then deliver it on television.

Right? I mean, all we hear from both the media and congressional pundits is the banal obvious: the party’s breakthrough nominee will be the one that figures out how to provide a breakthrough message. So from the 11,346 pool of Democratic Presidential candidates (so angry at the Democratic National Office for the size of the letting the field of hopefuls get this big), one of them needs to have a snappy elevator pitch. It’s ridiculous. But understandable given that television is the primary media for reaching and coercing voters. You would think that the candidates and their campagn teams would recognize the need to concoct a memorable phrase and consistently use it, time and time again. Because everyone knows the majority of the American voting public doesn’t actually read up on the candidates and the issues. The voters want action-adventure politics served up in a miniaturized matinee.

It’s probably true that those not old enough to vote know more about the candidates than the adults. Schools are studying this stuff everyday.

I wish I was Mosely-Braun’s campaign manager so when the question comes…”Carol, taking less than 45 seconds, can you explain what are you going to do for the American people?”…

“Kill the white man.”

She’d get my vote. 🙂

5 thoughts on “Your Country in 45 Seconds”

  2. Sound bites and me…

    I tend to vote in order of preference: (not thinking president here, mostly local candidates)

    1. If I know them, personally, to be an honest and reputable person.
    2. If I don’t know them personally, but know people who do that will attest to his/her character
    3. If I don’t know them personally, don’t know anybody that does, and have to rely on campaign statements. Generally, though, I end up reading the quick summary of their positions on the voter page.
    4. If I don’t know, and don’t care who staffs a position (like choosing between Al Gore and GW Bush, ugh), I tend to vote for the Libertarian.
    5. My last choice is just to take a blind guess at the ballot box. Unfortunately, even reading their position summaries leaves one mostly blind to that.

    I do try to keep educated on the issues for those positions I care about. For instance, I was one of thousands who voted out a local judge last year who had, in my opinion (and that of many others) abused his office. The new guy is really on the ball, I think mostly because he doesn’t want to repeat the first-ever vote-out of a judge in the state of Utah in the last 20 years.

    As far as presidential candidates go, unfortunately, I don’t really participate in the primary elections at all. I’m a registered Republican (who has been rethinking that since the day I did it). Here in Utah, the way it works is that anybody’s allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, but only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary. The reason is that Utah is some 96% Republican or Libertarian (many are Libertarian in their hearts, and Republican on their registration cards). As far as Utah Republicans go, I’m about as far left as they go. In the rest of the country, I’m a moderate 😉

    But anyway, once the field boils down to less than a half-dozen contenders, I tend to get interested. I’m a believer that past performance is a good indicator of future success, and that the People get about as good a President as they deserve. So I like to investigate their successes. An awful lot of the time, I see that the really successful people are not successful on their own, but because of the people they surround themselves with. So then it’s time to investigate their potential cabinet.

    I try to do it all in about eight hours of research if I can. But I think I’ve already made up my mind: Howard Dean. The guy is honest with his financial records, and that’s a big deal for me.

    —
    Matthew P. Barnson

    1. Moderate?

      If you’re for Howard Dean, You’re a LOT farther left than “Moderate Republican”. To me the guy just seems like a real moron. And I don’t mean that because I don’t like his politics. I mean, he really comes off as un-intelligent. To me that’s scary. I’m planning on voting in the Utah Democratic Primary although, I too, am a registered Republican. I plan to vote for Joe Leiberman or John Kerry in the primary. Probably the former. There are those that are afraid of “the other side” mucking up a primary election. I’m of the camp that says, “let’s get the two best folks we can find”. I admire Joe Leiberman’s ethics and candor. I’ve never heard him waver on an issue and he always seems to know where he stands. I also think he’s well educated and intelligent. I wish Dubya was a better public speaker so people could more readily see his intelligence.

      1. Social vs. Fiscal

        Yeah, I think I’m a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, with a really strong “stay the hell out of my life” streak. Makes it tough to define my politics 🙂

        —
        Matthew P. Barnson

        1. I can relate…

          I think you and I are similar that way. My feelings are this: Being politically conservative keeps the government out of your life in a fiscally conservative way so that you have the freedom to be as socially liberal as you please. But, yes, a hard balancing act. In reality I think even the most controlling folks want to do what they want for themselves, its others they are trying to govern. That annoys me.

Comments are closed.