CPSP Presentations Notes

Psychology of Politics The role of new forms of media has changed media in politics drastically. Party allegiance has stopped becoming something that will outright determine the reasons that someone will vote a certain way. Media has become the go between or third person that is in the political arena. Television began as the first way people began to be inundated by political messages. Older forms of communication, like the newspaper, allowed the voter to pick and choose what they wanted to read and acknowledge. Television changed the way politicians were received and the scope of media was never the same. Like-minded friends, allegiances, and family socialization stopped being the st reason that people voted a certain way, and politicians had the upper hand. In todays 21 century political climate, we have returned to that old age idea of being able to discern for oneself what the vote should be. Politicians have moved into using social sites, like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, to garner support through a more personal interaction with their constituents. The popularity of these sites have increased rapidly and more and more people log on and sign up daily. These sites have helped make politics more of a personal interaction than before because of the ability to engage the politician in open conversation, somewhat like a town hall meeting on your computer of smartphone.

The Pre-Social Media Campaign Campaign costs in the United States have become enormous, with political advertising, especially television, being the greatest expense. In the late 1990s, the FECA negated some of its own rules and weakened the restrictions on how campaigns could be funded. The FECA also allowed the campaigns to have free reign to say what they wanted so that they would not limits First Amendment rights. One of the more interesting cases was the use of television, then the most used media tool, in the 1992 election. Bill Clinton was seen as the Boy Governor and represented youth and change. The media painted him as such, and made Bush seem like the tired pick-up line in this election. They both used commercials to garner support, but Bush used his First Amendment rights to run attack ads, which backfired on him. Clinton was already seen as the future and these attack ads just gave him the chance to defend himself non-aggressively and make his image one of change through new politics. Clinton won the election handily.

The Modern Campaign Nowadays, sites like Twitter and Facebook allow for a more social and personal interaction with the candidates and even the politicians themselves. In the past, political decisions were made off of what your friends agreed with and what political party your family had an allegiance to. In the late 20th century, the television changed the way people perceived candidates and made their decisions. Nowadays, politicians are flocking to social media and using it in their campaigns, both for its cost effectiveness and its ability to get instant feedback on decisions. Rep. Justin Amash from Michigan was documented as being one of the first to really use Facebook in his campaigns to garner interest and support in his campaign. Once he was elected, he used Facebook to let his constituents known how he had voted and to get their input. This helped him create a more personal connection and more and more people have followed his lead. President Barack Obama uses Twitter to communicate to over 7 million of his followers every day and his Facebook page has over 20 million fans. Even if his pages are not updated by him personally, the fact that he has these pages creates a sense of personal connection and allows voters to make inferences based on what they are told directly from the candidate or elected official instead of relying on hearsay or skewed television ads. How Campaigns Affect Society As more and more people log on to these web sites, the reach that politicians have is far greater than ever before. The biggest issue with that is that it can have a negative effect as well as a positive effect. The positives are obviously that the platform and message of an individual gets heard, but the negative, on the political side, is that any mistake that happens is immediately broadcast with no filter and politicians may not have another chance to redeem themselves. Rep. Chistopher Lee of New York is one such example. He posted an image of himself to a woman on Craigslist, a popular site for selling junk and finding cheap housing. He was posing as a normal man, but was soon found out to be a congressman. This immediately tarnished his reputation and caused him to resign. This type of honesty and truth that the social media allows gives voters a chance to make better decisions, but leaves little room for erroe in the campaigns themselves.

The Future of Campaigns As social media grows, the ability of politicians to get closer and closer to their constituents grows as well. The creators of Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter were probably not thinking that their technology was going to be singularly used for political platforms, but in the foreseeable future, this technology could be socially constructed and developed in order to be used mainly for politics, but now we see technological determinism as the driving for as to why this technology is shaping society. Video technology could be the next big wave for use in politics as we see sites like Ustream and Skype gaining in popularity. Instead of using Youtube to create recordings, politicians could soon be using live video chatting on a larger scale. As the costs of campaigns increase, the new innovations we will see will be

many and politicians will need to be on the cutting edge of technology in order to successfully run a campaign in the future. The upcoming 2012 elections will be a huge stepping stone in the use of social media as more and more politicians are interacting on these sites.