Spring Break
Celeb endorsements good for votes, bad for democracy
Maria Myotte
Issue date: 12/10/07 Section: Opinion
Oprah's presence threatens to take over Obama's campaign, turning a vote for
Obama into a vote for Oprah.
Celebrity-sponsored politicians are symptomatic of the troubled state of civic engagement in the US. Image and advertising strategies have infiltrated the democratic process.
Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University said Obama's campaign is too light on pushing political issues.
"[Obama] radiat[es] a certain cool that would be very attractive to college
students and young people. But he has a cerebral approach that leaves some voters wanting more. While Clinton is running from the center and Edwards is running from the left, Obama is running from above," he said.
Basically, Obama is selling himself short.
Instead of replacing the haze of his celebrity with clear policy positions, his campaign is riding on his 15 minutes. This campaign position is problematic considering that Obama's camp champions "change.
Even though he launches a powerful challenge against his competitors, he doesn't open space for fresh relationships with potential voters.
Most Americans are politically active insofar that they follow the political aspirations of their Hollywood heroes. Voters, then, are twice removed from the origin of political developments.
The Oprah-Obama alliance is overshadowing a more important story. American politics favors passive citizens. Instead of confronting the increasingly thinning civic engagement of U.S. citizens, politicians legitimate the passive/spectator roles of voters by bringing in celebrities to do the job they can't seem to do.
Sure, celebrity endorsements may be a smart political move in the short term.
But the growing alliance between Hollywood and politics is definitely problematic for democracy's life expectancy.
Obama into a vote for Oprah.
Celebrity-sponsored politicians are symptomatic of the troubled state of civic engagement in the US. Image and advertising strategies have infiltrated the democratic process.
Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University said Obama's campaign is too light on pushing political issues.
"[Obama] radiat[es] a certain cool that would be very attractive to college
students and young people. But he has a cerebral approach that leaves some voters wanting more. While Clinton is running from the center and Edwards is running from the left, Obama is running from above," he said.
Basically, Obama is selling himself short.
Instead of replacing the haze of his celebrity with clear policy positions, his campaign is riding on his 15 minutes. This campaign position is problematic considering that Obama's camp champions "change.
Even though he launches a powerful challenge against his competitors, he doesn't open space for fresh relationships with potential voters.
Most Americans are politically active insofar that they follow the political aspirations of their Hollywood heroes. Voters, then, are twice removed from the origin of political developments.
The Oprah-Obama alliance is overshadowing a more important story. American politics favors passive citizens. Instead of confronting the increasingly thinning civic engagement of U.S. citizens, politicians legitimate the passive/spectator roles of voters by bringing in celebrities to do the job they can't seem to do.
Sure, celebrity endorsements may be a smart political move in the short term.
But the growing alliance between Hollywood and politics is definitely problematic for democracy's life expectancy.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
jimmy
posted 12/10/07 @ 7:57 AM MST
Are we that stupid, I think to say that only because Oprah supports Barak he will get more votes is totally undermining the intelligence of our voters. (Continued…)
Post a Comment