Recently, there have been many instances of candidates trying to be very funny and playful in public.
Donald Trump decided to host Saturday Night Live, which is meant to be a comedic, late-night television show. At many points in the night, Trump was very funny, evoking lots of laughs and smiles from the audience. However, he also made many derogatory comments, as he often does when addressing the nation. He has made numerous sexist and racist comments in the past, and surely did not fail to do so throughout his night on SNL. One example of his typical commentary is when he made offensive jokes and comments about Rosie O'Donnell while he was hosting.
Jeb Bush has also been seen being very casual with his followers. He has been verbally attacked by Trump about speaking Spanish to some of his supporters because Trump views this as kissing up to them and soliciting votes, as well as allowing citizens not to assimilate by speaking Spanish rather than learning English. Most recently, Bush was seen giving a new supporter a chest bump in public. His new follower has been a supporter of Ted Cruz's campaign, but after viewing Tuesday night's debate decided that his views are more aligned with Bush's. After the voter stated that he was switching to follow Bush, Bush gave him a chest bump. When questioned about this, he stated, "I do that for every convert."
These acts of very casual and/or comedic behavior toward the general public, and toward their campaign supporters could be viewed as both positives and negatives. One could view it simply as being relatable, perhaps humanizing a candidate whose relationship with voters may seem impersonal otherwise. The candidates could be viewed in a negative light, however, as being too casual and not being professional, respectable potential future presidents of the nation.
In my opinion, actions such as a chest bump or speaking Spanish to Spanish-speaking voters are harmless, fun, and respectful things for a candidate to do. I do not believe that it is appropriate, however, when candidates speak in an insulting way toward other candidates or toward certain groups of people, as has been demonstrated numerous times during this campaign season.
To what extent are casual actions towards the public positive or negative for candidates?
Are candidates' actions becoming too casual and relaxed in public, coming from potential future presidents?
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/jeb-bush-ted-cruz-chest-bump/index.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/2016-gop-debate-donald-trump-jeb-bush-spanish-213748
7 comments:
Candidates being casual is a very recent thing. Even looking back just ten years from now, we have politicians making the most minuscule issues that today wouldn't even call or a second glance. The "Dean Scream" is one famous example. Howard Dean's entire candidacy fell apart after his high pitched scream in front of his supporters. While this was not the only problem with his campaign, it was the catalyst to his failure. But today, we have Donald Trump dancing and singing along to "Hotline Bling" and Ben Carson hiring a rapper to rap about Carson's campaign. This level of casualness is hugely recent and has everything to do with the media.
The media, for better or for worse, highlights only what the know the viewers want to see. This is why you see outrageous claims of Trump and Carson and not the platforms of Bush and Rubio. So the more outrageous a candidate gets, the more free attention he will get. SO for Trump, this is a hugely positive thing. For Bush, not so much. In my opinion, the candidates are becoming too casual in public. But it will continue as long as the media keeps its same priorities, which I doubt will ever change.
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/looking-back-dean-scream-72209
Caitlyn, I do agree that the candidates are getting noticeably more casual than in past campaigns. I think it might be a by-product of the everything-at-once society we live in, but I also think it might be due to the fact that we live in a time where people heavily scrutinize public figures based on their personalities. However, I don't have a problem with it, and I think we are better off knowing a little bit more about the personalities of our leaders. After all, I believe the American people are entitled to know a little bit about the people who represent us to the world. With turmoil afoot domestically and abroad, I think this country needs a strong, personable leader that they can rally around, and build faith in the public sector after many years of distrust. A likeable, strong, quotable personality in the Oval Office might be just what the doctor ordered for politics in the United States. Take Putin, for instance. Clearly he has his eccentricities, and engages in dubious activities in Russia and across Europe and the Middle East, he has an astronomical approval rating of 89.9%. He's a real character (however crazy), and the Russian people feel safe and well-represented with him at the helm. Frankly, he has them back on the map as a potential superpower, and I think the US could do with regaining some gusto. All in all, I think the candidates getting more casual, showing some more passion, and making themselves more available to public through mediums such as social media is beneficial to the process, and can help us find a gem that we can all rally around.
I have to agree with Brendondo "Your Pal" DaVinciguerra on this one. The candidates are far too casual, from what I've seen the current campaigns looks more like the race for 5th Grade Class-President, as opposed to a race for the Presidency of the United States. The "Dean Scream" was a small fault in the campaign of what looked to be an otherwise composed candidate. Once again going along with Your Pal, Donald Trump taking over SNL and Ben Carson creating raps to reach out to the younger voters are both immature attempts to garner votes. The only way to create an effective system of politicking is if the candidates focus more on leading the country instead of putting focus on leading the 'trending' page on Twitter. But these are not nearly the only examples of casualness in today's race. For example, when Micheal Dukakis made his rather emotionless response to a question regarding what he'd do if his wife was taken advantaged of, back in the 1980s, the media slammed him for not being passionate enough about the relationship with his wife. On the other hand, in the most recent GOP 'undercard' debate, Mike Huckabee made a not-very smooth sexist joke about the annoyances of having a wife to answer to. But instead of getting roasted by the media, and/or/nor the crowd, his really badly delivered joke was met with laughter and nothing much else.
Obviously there is a certain lightheartedness in politics that can be taken advantage of in certain situations, but politicians should not be headlining for making bombastic statements. They should be headlining for making statements relative to this nation's future well-being. Politics is not a celebrity contest, candidates should start acting like adults before it is to late.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-huckabee-on-janet-yellen-wife-2015-11
I agree with many of the points made above like "Your Pal"'s points about Trump's dancing and Carson's rap in contrast to the Dean Scream. Especially from the perspective of ten years ago or even five years ago, the rapport that Carson and Trump have tried to establish is frankly crazy. However, I do not think this is the fault of the candidates, but the media that dictates what they need to do to succeed. On no social media website will a photo covered with information about Rubio's proposed tax policy reach millions of accounts. It is so much easier to relate to large groups of people with ridiculous memes or anecdotes, even if they seem cringe-inducing at first. Even if Carson's claims about the grain filled pyramids are complete fabrication, they still are attracting media attention from every major outlet in the country. As the expression goes, "all press is good press." Even if he comes under scrutiny from the Democrats or establishment Republicans, Carson still gains face-time with the people of the United States, encouraging people to look him up online and perhaps see something that interests them. It is interesting to see this unorthodox campaign strategy develop. While I would not dream of voting for either Trump or Carson, it is impossible to not admire the work they have done to develop such innovative campaigns.
Although some of the media stunts candidates have been pulling have been relatively improper, I have to say that I do understand why they are doing what they are. They want to seem hip and relatable; they want to attract a demographic of young voters. However, they should bear in mind that, which whatever group they are appealing to and winning over in this process, they should expect to lose a handful of (likely older) voters who value traditionalism.
There are some aspects of a casual relationship with the public that every candidate should practice-- shaking hands with potential voters, visiting schools, and volunteering to name a few. I do think, however, that this presidential campaign could do without some of the hokey acts that it has highlighted thus far. Performing raps and dances can be fun and it may be a good way to come across as lighthearted, but, at the same time, it is also demonstrating a level of unprofessionalism that anyone hoping to lead the country should not strive for.
Though I agree that the candidates in this election have been more casual than ever before, I, for the most part, like to see how they interact with other people. It can give voters a chance to view the candidates as people instead of politicians trying to become President. As we learned, campaigning is extremely stressful, and nonstop. At some point, it becomes hard to maintain the façade of a politician. They too, have to enjoy while they can. Overall, I sympathize with the politicians and their current state, trying to balance family, work, and campaigning.
In addition, they could just be trying to do their job well. The rational choice theory states that politicians act in their own best interests, carefully weighing the costs and benefits of possible alternatives. Candidates will do all sorts of things to win as we can see with Trump. However, he must’ve consulted his campaign team and concluded that hosting Saturday Night Live would help him more than hurt him. Unfortunately, politics and entertainment are overlapping more, and I don’t blame the candidates for trying to keep up with modern day media.
Candidates are definitely becoming more casual in recent years mainly due to media coverage. The media will hype up anything that can be used to entertain the public. Unfortunately, it seems as if the public has almost become more interested in who is the most entertaining candidate, not who is the best for President. This is very clear in the case of Donald Trump, whose entire campaign has been driven by the media attention. The more reserved and formal candidates are often ignored because people are looking for excitement. I think that it is a good thing that politicians are becoming more casual, so the voters can see who the candidates really are and how they interact with people. However, I think some of the candidates have taken it too far. There is a fine line between being casual and insulting certain groups of people like Trump does. I also think that many candidates are trying too hard to be casual and entertaining, which leads to publicity stunts that contribute very little to their actual campaign.
Post a Comment