|
|
|
|||||
|
Dear George, Thank you for your commitment to providing such an
informative Internet resource for those progressives in the area seeking
to stay abreast of political goings on. He voices three basic fears: 1) that the Presidency of the United States will be presented as "an entry-level position", the qualifications for which will appear diminished; 2) that the desire to attain an audience will produce a sensationalized program that sends the wrong message to Americans; and 3) that a potential write-in candidacy emerging from the program will impact the results of the actual election in November. These anxieties regarding this cable television show's implications for the future of democracy in America smack of hyperbole. What's particularly discouraging, given RePass's background as a political scholar, is that all of these apprehensions seem fraught with a basic cynicism regarding the capacity of citizens to properly interpret what they see on television, let alone participate meaningfully in our political process. This distrust is especially peculiar given that RePass's most salient contribution to political science was a 1971 paper proclaiming the ability of voters to consider substantive issues in their electoral decision making. In that paper, RePass used quantitative analysis to conclude that "voters seem to be acting more responsibly than had previously been thought." Why, then, are we now so fearful of the distortionary impact of a mere television program? I, frankly, am much more concerned that plummeting voter turnout threatens to desecrate our electoral system and trivialize the chief executive. Far from hoping that this program might produce a legitimate, fully vetted candidate for president, the producers are focused on an examination of the campaign process and increasing dialogue on key issues. (Some of the contestants are not even old enough to serve as president, let alone qualified in terms of resume material.) What of the possibility of the "American Candidate" spawning a write-in contender capable of altering the outcome of our real election? Come on. I suspect the vast majority of those who might cast such a vote would probably not have gone to the polls otherwise. Even if some would have voted anyway, my guess is the candidates most likely to lose votes would be perennial write-in favs, such as Mickey Mouse and Elvis. If, by some chance, an "American Candidate" makes enough of a splash to actually draw votes away from Kerry or Bush, it wouldn't simply be because he or she appeared on the show. That sort of support would show that the candidate had developed and expressed a message that resonated with voters. Isn't that what our system is all about? Those sophisticated enough to visit your website, George, are likely quite familiar with the many efforts of the Center for Politics to improve the political process and increase education and participation. We host numerous debates and forums, both locally and nationally, addressing today's political issues. We sponsor cutting-edge research and produce important scholarly and mainstream publications. Perhaps most importantly, our groundbreaking civic education program, the Youth Leadership Initiative, is now used by teachers and students in nearly 10,000 schools across America. This signature program is literally reawakening a sense of civic duty and efficacy among some of our youngest citizens and our future leaders. Traditionalists, like RePass, might shudder at a few of the methods we employ to reach young people through the Youth Leadership Initiative. I'm sure he would approve glowingly of some of our more conventional techniques, such as a mock election, a vast array of teacher developed lesson plans, and a congressional simulation. How would he feel, though, about our "A More Perfect Union" video game that allows students to control the many elements of a U.S. Senate campaign? Sure, the video game includes instances of "dirty tricks" and is infused with lighthearted humor. In the end, though, the result is that a young person, perhaps drawn in by elements that make the game "fun", has spent hours thinking about and practicing politics and campaigns. The best part: they don't always even realize they are learning. We are appropriating an instrument of pop culture to engage and educate. The bottom line is that we desperately need to connect Americans, especially young Americans, with the political process. We have the lowest voter turnout of any industrial democracy. Evidence demonstrates over and over again that our young people do not fully understand the political process, and that this lack of knowledge makes them distrustful and less likely to see politics as an effective civic outlet. The Center for Politics continues to pursue many of the old-standard, proven methods of civic engagement. The rapid decline in participation, however, demands some fresh ideas. It demands creativity. It demands that we be willing to take some risks and show some faith in the judgment of Americans. We believe "American Candidate" has the potential to move us in the right direction, toward greater awareness of and involvement in politics. Is it a panacea? Of course not. But, I suspect it won't prove as cataclysmic as RePass imagines. The Center became involved in this project because we saw the positive potential of the program. And, while we certainly do not have any editorial control over the show, we felt that, since it was going to happen, we might as well try to impact it positively. ("American Candidate" is being produced by R.J. Cutler, who gave us "The War Room", a documentary about Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.) The Center's director, Larry Sabato, is joined on the Advisory Board of "American Candidate" by a number of other prominent individuals. Among them are: * Kay Maxwell, President of the League of Women Voters These people share our commitment to increasing political education and participation and, I suspect, felt the same way about the show's possibilities and their ability to impact the final product. Neither Sabato nor the Center is receiving any money for participation. The sole reason for our involvement is the potential for this program to increase discussion of political issues and awareness of the electoral process. Will "American Candidate" come out exactly the way we would have liked it? Probably not. Will it be designed to have popular appeal? Sure, as is our cable and network news. Will this program fundamentally change the dynamics of the 2004 Election? Let's be serious. But, will the program end up more substantive and more meaningful than it otherwise would have been, thanks to the counsel and participation of organizations like the Center for Politics? Almost certainly. And, most importantly, will "American Candidate" prompt additional dialogue on politics among the public? Absolutely! It already has. Several local groups and individuals will be participating in discussions surrounding the show's upcoming visit to Charlottesville. Even those who, like RePass, seek to call the project's merit into question are inadvertently complicit in increasing the flow of political discourse. When more votes are cast during a season of "American Idol" than during a Presidential Election, politics could use a little popularizing. Sincerely,
|
