To blog or not to blog. That is the question.

The continual advancement of communication technologies has stretched an already thin veil protecting candidates from constant scrutiny. Unlike 20 years ago when talking-heads dominated political speak on the various mainline networks, today's candidates face an even deeper and more cross-cultured criticism. This blog is a perfect example. The dominance of the political primaries has forced candidates to become more universal. Instead of concentrating on particular issues that may concern a cross-section of the electorate, such as the Iraq war or the economy, candidates today must have a position on nearly all issues or risk losing delegates and in turn the party nomination. I believe this is why the recent presidential elections have been so close. Aside from party-line issues such as their approach to taxes or labor, the two parties have essentially become universal.

In the same fashion, congressional candidates are under more scrutiny as they represent small regions of the voting spectrum. Internet forums, blogs and activist groups have given the rank and file voters a larger influence aside from voting itself. Congressional candidates must take these seriously as in recent years they have proven to turn the tide in favor of one party over another much like we've just witnesses in the recent elections that now have the Democrats in firm control of both the Senate and the House.

Looking back to the 2008 presidential elections, it seems evident that the candidates are aware of the capabilities of the Internet (look for yourself-Obama). Obviously at this stage the winner of the election has more to post. Obama's site is full of stories ranging from state concerns to the state of our flailing economy. Its evident that the Obama campaign has utilized the Internet as a tool to not only propel his party to victory but to continue to build a base on a community level.

In conclusion, it is evident that as media advances so must the candidates and the campaign strategies. In future elections, candidates that fail to include the community driven qualities of the Internet and related forums, will most likely suffer at the polls.

Banging My Head Against a Wall...

In recent years, after the slow evolution of campaign finance reform culminated in the Feingold-McCain reform act, it seems as though the issues that were resolved have only led to more issues. For example the current finance regulatory regime has created a political environment that favors the incumbent candidates. The proliferation of PAC's (political action committees) has resulted in a slight advantage for incumbent candidates as they generally have a stronger more developed PAC base from which to gain support. PAC's (interest groups) are essentially the epitome of factionalism and play a large role in pushing their parties agenda especially through television spots.

In my opinion, factionalism is a political force that will always exist. Opinions are part of human character. The real question at hand is are they bad? As noted in one of my other blogs, when unchecked the factionalist passions can be destructive, but when they are vented into constructive means, I believe they challenge our candidates and parties alike and in the end provide more durable leaders.


note: I have to be totally honest here. I read the text and do all the work, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. I don't know if its the way the questions are worded or what, but these blogs are becoming increasingly difficult for me to write. I really feel like I have no clue what I'm talking about. Hopefully this changes and I catch on a little more or this will be a long semester.

The politics of non-politics.

Despite our interconnectedness via modern technological advances such as television, radio and the Internet, regional bias still exists. After all, each portion of the country is dealing with varying economic, racial, and geographical influences that greatly shape the way they think. In this sense, the decentralization of political parties would seem to be quite detrimental to the overall cohesion of the party on a national level, but its not. Parties have grown, not in a matter of size, but in the broadness of the issues they represent and voter turnout has reached unprecedented numbers. Virtually any voter can now chime with either party on issues affecting them. Rather then remaining one static body, the parties have "assumed a coalition form (Heatherington & Keefe, 36)."
As a result, the parties change shape over years as some coalitions leave while others join (the text gives a great example on pg. 36 concerning the voting patterns of Catholics versus Protestants). The point is that political parties are not static institutions. They are constantly changing and evolving as their constituencies change. Most recently we elected a new President- Barak Obama. The election was called a "landslide", not necessarily because Mr. Obama beat Mr. McCain that badly, but because the Democrats effectively seized the reigns of the executive as well as the legislative branches of our government.
My contetion regarding this lopsided victory does not revlove so much around a cleverly contrived political argument -it is much more simple than that: The anti-Bush vote. Most people don't know allot about the innerworkings of the American political machine, but they do understand changes in their daily lives. How much money can I spend? Do I have a job? When will this stupid war end? The democrats effectively siezed on these issues rather than politicizing their differences with the republican party. As a result, the election was not based on conservative or liberal issues. It was based on quality of life, both now and in the near future.

The Danger Without...

To come to any reasonable definition of exactly what a political party is and why it exists, it is important to understand the tragedies created by the lack thereof. Simply put, political parties act as buffers to channel the passions of the governed populace. They lend a voice to what otherwise could develop into sectionalism, better known as geographical or regional political dominance. A great example to illustrate the potential tragedies of a partiless government is the demise of the Whig party during the mid-nineteenth century and the Civil War which soon followed.

After the great Compromise of 1850, robust disagreement between the Whigs and Democrats all but disappeared. The parties quite simply ceased to be relevant in that they didn't offer solutions to problems most important to the people at the time such as temperance, and the evils associated with the current influx of immigration. As a result, the Whig party collapsed and in its stead several "extremist" parties arose. Some concerned themselves with what we would consider blatant racist agendas, while others developed into anti-slave/anti-democrat parties. Over the course of just a few years some of these lessor parties coalesced into the Republican party. This party was dominated by northern interests as opposed to the Democratic party which over the previous decades came to be dominated by the rich southern planter class. What happened as a result is written in every American history book ever made. A great divide occurred in our country because people could not find a constructive outlet for their concerns over divisive issues.

Parties exist therefore, similar to our governmental system of "checks and balances", to vent the passions of our populace into a constructive means of representation and debate. To go without would most certainly have dire consequences.


A new vintage debate...

Who is William Stangel and what does he want?

Hello. I am William Stangel (sorry, no picture yet available).

This semester marks a turning point in my academic career thus far for more than one reason. First- I will be finishing my undergraduate degree in History and Ethnic Studies this spring. Secondly it is the very first semester that I have taken a political science class- ever. In light of this, I thought it wise to dive in and not take just one political science class, but two. No sense in scraping the surface. I want to go deep and wrap my brain around the intricate underpinnings of our fine American political establishment. Well since I do value honesty I guess I should be forthright and mention I need 6 credits of upper-level classes to accomplish the above mentioned graduation. As much as I would love to become a poli-sci ace, the truth is that I just need the credits ("Show me the credits!"- recall famous line from the movie Jerry Macguire). I digress... I love studying history because I find the elements that shape it fascinating. Ironically, more often than not, these elements are politically related. Therefore, upon finishing this class and receiving that coveted piece of ink-laden tree-bark known as a degree, I hope to attain a deeper understanding of the political process and the daily factors that impress themselves upon it.