Left Limit, Right Limit: An Approach to Understanding Political Issues Part VIII

I thought I was generally finished with my analysis of Republican fund raising literature. Then something I heard in the commentary at the Republican convention brought up one more thing I want to discuss.

Before Governor Palin’s speech Wednesday night, on-air remarks were made about the schedule leading up to and including the speech itself. Those remarks noted the events were timed in such a way to preclude any commentary before or after the event, especially with regard to the 10-11 Eastern Time slot. This brought to mind one of the writings from Rove’s letter. To quote again:

“When Republicans get our message and ideas past the Liberal media filter and directly to voters—we win.”

Personally, I have primarily watched the two conventions on CSPAN. I prefer to watch as if I were present at the convention. I don’t want to have someone else tell me what to think about what I’m watching and I will make up my own mind as to whether I want to continue to listen and watch. Occasionally flipping through the channels leads me to believe this. If you watched one of the major news channels to see the conventions you missed a lot of content.

Let me balance what I just wrote with this. Once I’ve seen the content for myself, I want to know what others think. For that, I and everyone else need the Fourth Estate, both print and broadcast. Do some elements of the Press focus on a single point of view? Absolutely, which means you have to filter the filterers.

One point I make in my book is my desire to see the news divisions of the major broadcast networks allowed to become a not-for-profit element of the major corporations they belong to. Each of us could help to do that by owning small amounts of stock in those corporations and collectively demanding that transition. Without the pressure of the profit motive, our news organizations would be less susceptible to covering the sensational over the substantial.

Now let’s go back to Rove’s mantra about getting past the media filter. I note a significant controversy about the treatment of Governor Palin by the press, as if the questions about her were somehow undeserved or inappropriate.

I think if you were to put the questions asked of candidates on a curve, then you would find the number of softball questions equal to the inappropriate ones.

Let’s take a moment to remind ourselves of the role of the Press. Given the demands on our daily life, we don’t have the time to do our own personal due diligence. We don’t have time to make the phone calls, schedule and conduct the interviews and search for proof that often the people involved would rather keep hidden. The people who work in the world of Journalism do that on our behalf. Their efforts give us the additional information we need to know to make an informed decision. They give us the other side we need to hear and expose the phone façade that keeps us from being fooled and making the wrong vote.

Jim Rohn talks about how boring music would be if all you heard was little happy high notes. Along with the fast tempo songs, you need slow songs mixed in to dance to. We should be the same way with our sampling of commentary.

Maybe if your ideas can’t stand the scrutiny of the media filter, then your ideas shouldn’t be implemented. My advice for the left and the right is this. Work harder on making your ideas and candidates pass the scrutiny of the light of day and less on keeping them from the light of day.

Book: Declaring Independence

I’m reading a book called Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System by Douglas E. Schoen. The book is a discussion of the dysfunctional nature of the two major parties, the fact that the largest voter block is now Independent, and the potential emergence of a third party. The book has a terrific analysis of Ross Perot (in particular) and other latter day third party candidates.

What I found most revealing was his discussion of what Schoen calls Restless and Anxious Moderates (RAMs). These are voters particularly put off by partisan bickering and impasse. Their agenda is particularly satisfied by the approach of Senator Obama. Reading Schoen’s book, I had two random thoughts based on my own research about the phenomenon we’re observing in this campaign.

First, I think that Senator Obama has not so much won over the members of the Democratic Party as he has attracted RAMs to vote within the Democratic Party. Had the Primary contest been restricted to existing Democrats, then Senator Clinton might well have won the nomination. Obama changed the game with his message and RAM recruitment.

Second, given the description of RAMs, all the emails about Obama’s lack of executive experience, his religious affiliation, that he is an “empty suit” are rejected by RAMs. RAMs could care less. They see these charges as continuation of the partisan impasse they despise. In fact, this type of messaging is more likely to solidify their affiliation with Senator Obama than to drive RAMs from him. Those who oppose Senator Obama may want to rethink their tactics. What worked before may not necessarily work now.