If Thomas Jefferson Were to Run for the 2012 Presidential Elections
Published in Sina
(China) on 30 September 2011
by Ma Ye (link to original)
No one can predict the result of the 2012 U.S. presidential elections. We’ve learned in middle school politics that the economic base determines the superstructure, and such a universal theory also applies to America’s presidential campaigns: In 2004, people from the East Coast and West Coast both hated George W. Bush, but he still won the election. If it were not for Lehman Brothers’ downfall in 2008 and Wall Street’s depression, Republicans would have had a chance to win the elections in 2008. Today the American economy is facing the possibility of a double-dip recession, and Wall Street has begun cutting staff; the hopes of the Democrats and Obama is linked to a series of possibilities.
Once the time comes, the big election will begin. The New York Times has started to report comprehensively on the election very early on, including the candidates’ backgrounds, the two parties’ current situations, poll results and analysis and historical precedents, etc. This year’s election resembles a bit of the 2004 election, since Obama is still in his first term; so from now until next spring, it is just the Republicans’ primaries, and the competition is less fierce than the same period in 2007.
America’s current presidential election is much different from what we learned from books, films and television programs. What we imagined was something like the 1860 election, when Lincoln gave an impassioned abolitionist speech, or like the campaign in 1960, when Kennedy brought his lovely wife to visit and solicit votes. Another 50 years has gone, means of reaching the masses like giving speeches and visiting the masses still exist, but modern communication technology has already turned the elections into a pervasive marathon.
Nowadays, candidates should not only excel in election speeches and debates, but also watch themselves on every occasion, in case some indecent photos of themselves are posted on Twitter, making them global jokes. Every media outlet pays close attention to every single move of all the candidates: When do they eat dinner? With whom? Where do they play golf? Their personal backgrounds are also being precisely researched; a wrong word spoken 20 years ago may sabotage their political future. Harriet Miers, the nominated Supreme Court justice during George Bush’s term, is a lesson: She had supported a woman’s right to abortion in a speech several years earlier, which made her lose support from conservatives.
It seems that these are not enough for candidates, as almost all of this year’s Republican candidates have Twitter and Facebook accounts, and 76-year-old former Texas Congressman Ron Paul is no exception. Of course, these candidates have different styles, and what they posted on Twitter and Facebook are also very different; for example, Michele Bachmann mainly posts her news summaries on Twitter, and Sarah Palin, who hasn’t officially announced her participation in the election, posts more about normal life on Twitter, from criticizing Obama to congratulating her parents’ golden wedding anniversary. Like an experienced user on Twitter, Palin always @ Obama when criticizing him.
These modern communication tools obviously helps voters to know their future president more comprehensively, but they also cause many negative effects. The most prominent aspect is that the voters’ attention is fragmented — as a result of receiving too much mixed and trivial information, which instead leads to negative effects by impairing their judgments. Because of these outcomes, today’s election is more influenced by timing and locations; for example, if a scandal is revealed in the early stages of an election, the candidate can have enough time to distract voters’ attention and dilute the impact of the scandal. If a negative incident were to happen near the election, like Lehman Brother’s bankruptcy in October 2008, the candidate would fail completely, like the Republicans did in 2008.
Sometimes I think about whether some outstanding American presidents in history would be elected presidents today. Former President Thomas Jefferson committed adultery with his black slave for years, and we all know that President John Kennedy was dissolute. These problems were not worthy of mention compared to their achievements, because they won their presidencies through demonstrating their leadership skills and political positions. Due to the lack of communication tools, voters could only see those presidents giving speeches and observe their behavior on formal occasions. Information regarding their private lives was left out because of the capacity of the media. However, those presidents were solely political beings; when they were America’s presidents, they were no longer someone else’s husbands, sons or other roles they played in their lives — they were just presidents. This is what we need to use to judge a president; what he does with his personal life has little to do with his ability to be a president. If in the presidential elections in 1800 Jefferson’s private life was revealed to the public, it would be hard to say whether the masses would make the same decision as they had.
Once the time comes, the big election will begin. The New York Times has started to report comprehensively on the election very early on, including the candidates’ backgrounds, the two parties’ current situations, poll results and analysis and historical precedents, etc. This year’s election resembles a bit of the 2004 election, since Obama is still in his first term; so from now until next spring, it is just the Republicans’ primaries, and the competition is less fierce than the same period in 2007.
America’s current presidential election is much different from what we learned from books, films and television programs. What we imagined was something like the 1860 election, when Lincoln gave an impassioned abolitionist speech, or like the campaign in 1960, when Kennedy brought his lovely wife to visit and solicit votes. Another 50 years has gone, means of reaching the masses like giving speeches and visiting the masses still exist, but modern communication technology has already turned the elections into a pervasive marathon.
Nowadays, candidates should not only excel in election speeches and debates, but also watch themselves on every occasion, in case some indecent photos of themselves are posted on Twitter, making them global jokes. Every media outlet pays close attention to every single move of all the candidates: When do they eat dinner? With whom? Where do they play golf? Their personal backgrounds are also being precisely researched; a wrong word spoken 20 years ago may sabotage their political future. Harriet Miers, the nominated Supreme Court justice during George Bush’s term, is a lesson: She had supported a woman’s right to abortion in a speech several years earlier, which made her lose support from conservatives.
It seems that these are not enough for candidates, as almost all of this year’s Republican candidates have Twitter and Facebook accounts, and 76-year-old former Texas Congressman Ron Paul is no exception. Of course, these candidates have different styles, and what they posted on Twitter and Facebook are also very different; for example, Michele Bachmann mainly posts her news summaries on Twitter, and Sarah Palin, who hasn’t officially announced her participation in the election, posts more about normal life on Twitter, from criticizing Obama to congratulating her parents’ golden wedding anniversary. Like an experienced user on Twitter, Palin always @ Obama when criticizing him.
These modern communication tools obviously helps voters to know their future president more comprehensively, but they also cause many negative effects. The most prominent aspect is that the voters’ attention is fragmented — as a result of receiving too much mixed and trivial information, which instead leads to negative effects by impairing their judgments. Because of these outcomes, today’s election is more influenced by timing and locations; for example, if a scandal is revealed in the early stages of an election, the candidate can have enough time to distract voters’ attention and dilute the impact of the scandal. If a negative incident were to happen near the election, like Lehman Brother’s bankruptcy in October 2008, the candidate would fail completely, like the Republicans did in 2008.
Sometimes I think about whether some outstanding American presidents in history would be elected presidents today. Former President Thomas Jefferson committed adultery with his black slave for years, and we all know that President John Kennedy was dissolute. These problems were not worthy of mention compared to their achievements, because they won their presidencies through demonstrating their leadership skills and political positions. Due to the lack of communication tools, voters could only see those presidents giving speeches and observe their behavior on formal occasions. Information regarding their private lives was left out because of the capacity of the media. However, those presidents were solely political beings; when they were America’s presidents, they were no longer someone else’s husbands, sons or other roles they played in their lives — they were just presidents. This is what we need to use to judge a president; what he does with his personal life has little to do with his ability to be a president. If in the presidential elections in 1800 Jefferson’s private life was revealed to the public, it would be hard to say whether the masses would make the same decision as they had.