To simply answer the question, "Do the candidates of the 2008 presidential elections seem like agents of their parties?", well...yes, despite the different ways both came to their respective party's nominations, I think they very much do. With many people having predicted '08 to be Hillary's year to run as the Democratic candidate, Obama took many by suprise with his quick rise in the early primary season. In a different way, many Republicans are still just flat suprised that McCain is their nominee. But they will, in most cases, back him up with their votes even if he screwed them by supporting some investigation or bill they didn't like because he's still preferable to the other guy. This comes back to part of what I had in mind when I defined "party" for myself, that people who are members of a party may not like every other member or agree on every point, but they come back to that group when it's time to vote. Anyway, while it is perhaps nice lip service to talk about change, bi-partisanship, or being a "maverick", ultimately both candidates need their respective party's core voters just as much as they need those moderate, undecided voters. I think for the most part they do both carry the support of the party hardcore. As they should - saying you're different or independent doesn't make one so, and just because these candidates weren't handpicked by party officials in a smoke-filled room doesn't mean they won't act as relatively typical agents of the party in order to get elected. McCain certainly has crossed that line (but that's a value judgement, I'll reserve elaboration in the interest of more scholarly matters). Moreover, to actually deliver on many of the things they are proposing, they would need that kind of support in a U.S. Congress where bi-partisanship is, in reality, pretty much a thing of the past. See http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bigsort/default.aspx on the recent bailout bill vote. The chart is pretty stark. To me, whether or not the Democratic/Republican Party structure got behind Obama/McCain...so then he won, or he forced them to because he won doesn't really matter. The structure may have changed in terms of the frontloaded primaries and voters having a more direct say in who becomes the nominee, but there is still a large role for the party with regard to pushing candidates in the invisible primary phase and just providing the basic presidential campaign structure of primary > convention > election.
I think the difference and tensions of candidate-centered vs. party-centered campaigns certainly tips in favor of candidate-centeredness just because of the increased opportunities for congressmen or candidates to appear on television, build their own website, etc. Ultimately I don't see this as entirely different from party-centric campaigns because there can be so many tie-ins. I remember reading an article last spring about the mayoral election in London (http://www.slate.com/id/2190110/) where in the campaign itself there was almost no mention of party, party platforms, agendas, etc. whatsoever...it was quite literally both candidates insulting each other and engaging in what amounted to a personality contest. While it is perhaps an extreme example, I have not yet become aware of anything quite similar in American politics. There always seems to be some of party angle, that sense that they are still on some sort of team and very much aware of it. In most cases I think the people watching these shows or engaging themselves in politics are aware of which side representatives and candidates are on too (Joe Lieberman excluded).
As far as the candidates websites, first of all I noticed how similar both of them are in many ways. Both have frontpage links for volunteering, issues, blogs, contributing (of course), campaign calendars, etc. - the types of tools mentioned in Teachout's article. Obama's is a little easier to navigate, but for either him or McCain it's pretty simple to select the state you're from and find a local office to sign up or volunteer in just a couple clicks of the mouse. Obama also has links and tie-ins with other news and social networking sites. But if the point is to find an internet structure that in Teachout's words, "emphasizes simplicity", then I would have to give the edge to Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you about how the partie's are going to end up backing up their candidate, despite things that might have occurred in the past, like with McCain and some of his previous voting. Even George W. Bush, endorsed him after there was bad blood from the 2000 election.
I agree with most of what you had to say. Within each political party there is various opinions and always have two extremes on both sides. Voters seem to, like you stated, come back to that party when it is time to vote regardless of how different or how much the voter does not agree with every member.
Post a Comment