Candidate-Centered System, Meet Technology.

As this week’s readings have previously made clear, America’s electoral culture is rapidly transforming. In the decades just prior to the New Millennium, fear of internet-overexposure was absent from the worryings of America’s politicians. Now, with the advent of YouTube and other similar websites, this fear sits atop the list of many candidates’ concerns. This consequence of the Technological Era, however, is only one contributing factor to our current candidate-centered political culture.

This relatively new development in America’s political scene was nowhere more evident than in the 2008 Presidential election. Due in large part to influences we have discussed in previous weeks (e.g. the institution of direct primaries), citizens are focusing more on the aptitudes and faults of individual politicians rather than political parties when deciding which box to check. In response to this shift, the 2008 Presidential election featured a wide array of characters, all vying for their respective party’s nomination. On the Republican side, these actors included a Christian fundamentalist (Mike Huckabee), a Social progressive (Rudi Giuliani), a Maverick (John McCain), and the party’s preferred candidate (Fred Thompson). The most outstanding proof to the candidate-centered nature of our political system is that each of these men, though extremely ideologically diverse, was able to establish a great deal of national party support prior to and during the primary season. This demonstrates that none of the candidates were acting as an “agent” of the party so to speak, but that each man appealed to a certain portion of the Big-Tent organization that is the GOP. The fact that Fred Thompson’s (arguably the party elite’s preferred candidate) campaign disintegrated steadily from the beginning of the primary further demonstrates the affects of the candidate-centered system.

The same dynamic was evident in the Democratic race as well, though perhaps not to such a great degree. Early on in the competition, Hillary Clinton emerged as the candidate most likely to receive the party’s nomination. With more name recognition and a larger national base, Clinton seemed a logical choice for the Dems. However, as the primary season rolled on, the young and exuberant Barack Obama began to make a push. Winning the Iowa caucuses, and finishing second in the New Hampshire primary, Obama garnered a great deal of media attention in the early months of the race. With this increased exposure, as well as the electorate’s use of sites such as YouTube to view various campaign-trail moments, Obama’s popularity exploded. Many accredit this dramatic increase in support to the populace’s gradual acknowledgement of Obama’s speaking abilities and his optimistic outlook. Again, the candidate-centered aspect of America’s political culture is brought to the forefront. Barack Obama went on to receive the party’s nomination, and was ultimately elected as the forty-fourth President.

Throughout the primary season, both Obama and Sen. McCain (the GOP’s eventual candidate) managed to fare pretty well in the internet realm. Neither candidate was seriously damaged by any web-displayed campaign faux pa, and both had well-established internet support networks. The importance of a successful web-based campaign speaks loudly to the candidate-centeredness of our political system. Much of the electorate gets most of their political news from internet sources, so a strong net presence is now a requirement for any serious candidate. This is true not only at the Presidential level, but also at the Congressional and Senatorial level. In order to maintain a line of direct communication with constituents, all candidates must utilize technologies such as the internet. In turn, our candidate-centered culture is, for better or for worse, further perpetuated in a sort of cyclical nature; candidates use the internet to reach voters, voters know this, and thus expect it. Furthermore, candidates are constantly at risk of derailing their own ambitions by having leaked a simple misstatement or a piece of a private conversation on sites such as YouTube. While some characterize the increasing use of web resources as a potential death knell for political parties, others see it as a necessary evolutionary step for increasing political accountability. You decide.


*Note: I was not able to locate the Teachout article on E-Reserve, and thus could not complete the last segment of the assignment. There were links to several other articles, but the Teachout piece was not there.