Amazon.com
In the first of his three debates with George W. Bush, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry argued against the war in Iraq not by directly condemning it but by citing the various ways in which airport and commercial shipping security had been jeopardized due to the war's sizable price tag. In so doing, he re-framed the war issue to his advantage while avoiding discussing it in the global terrorism terms favored by President Bush. One possible reason for this tactic could have been that Kerry familiarized himself with the influential linguist George Lakoff, who argues in Don't Think of an Elephant that much of the success the Republican Party can be attributed to a persistent ability to control the language of key issues and thus position themselves in favorable terms to voters. While Democrats may have valid arguments, Lakoff points out they are destined to lose when they and the news media accept such nomenclature as "pro-life," "tax relief," and "family values," since to argue against such inherently positive terminology necessarily casts the arguer in a negative light. Lakoff offers recommendations for how the progressive movement can regain semantic equity by repositioning their arguments, such as countering the conservative call for "Strong Defense" with a call for "A Stronger America" (curiously, one of the key slogans of the Kerry camp). Since the book was published during the height of the presidential campaign, Lakoff was unable to provide an analytical perspective on that race. He does, however, apply the notion of rhetorical framing devices to the 2003 California recall election in an insightful analysis of the Schwarzenegger victory. Don't Think of an Elephant is a bit rambling, overexplaining some concepts while leaving others underexplored, but it provides a compelling linguistic analysis of political campaigning. --John Moe
Book Description
Don't Think of an Elephant! is the definitive handbook for understanding what happened in the 2004 election and communicating effectively about key issues facing America today. Author George Lakoff has become a key advisor to the Democratic party, helping them develop their message and frame the political debate.
In this book Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.
Lakoff's years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests.
Don't Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing's stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.
Read it, take action-and help take America back.
Customer Reviews:
A way to get out from underneath the media of the neocons.......2007-10-18
Finally a book that truly describes the media "Blitz" the neocons have been working on for years and how to combat it.
Absolutely love this Book.......2007-09-09
I've read this book twice now, and each time I read it I gain a better understanding of my surroundings. Lakoff does a great job of first describing what he means by "framing" and how it applies to nearly every aspect of life. He then applies his idea of framing and cognitive dissonance to political affiliations. This book does an excellent job of explaining almost all the issues that ail our political system today. The book explains timeless dialogue between the left and right over the last 25 years.
I've bought four or five copies now, and it's one of my favourite books to give to graduates. Definitely a must read!
Must read for progressives and liberals.......2007-08-05
I appreciated the way Lakoff provided a frame for progressive values. I purchased a copy for several friends and family members.
Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.......2007-06-27
Lakoff's book is truly a guide for progressive values in the United States. His diligent work as a linguist really informed me of the concerted and deliberate efforts of the ultra conservative politic right to control the debate, messaging, and election outcomes. I am a moderate and was shocked into action after reading this book, and more than once. It is a quick, informative, and provacative statement on what we as individuals need to do to get this country back on track and in alignment with the Bill of Rights and The Constitution. Lakoff educated me and it has had a profound impact on my life and involvement in our democracy.
A concise primer on what really makes political messaging work........2007-05-30
This is a great primer on cognitive science as it relates to political messaging. Lakoff has done a lot of ground breaking work in illuminating how verbal metaphor dictates cognition. And here he presents this idea in simple, concrete language, with plenty of sharp examples, to explain how these same principles dictate how we perceive political messages.
Some have posted negative reviews of this book by criticizing its politics, which are unabashedly liberal and progressive. But the value in a book like this lies not in whatever its political message might be, which is really quite vague, but rather lies in the insights it provides anyone into how a prospective audience will receive a message, and how best to construct a message to gain broad acceptance.
Lakoff "decodes" the value politics of the past several decades to show how conservative politicians, by employing the right verbal metaphors to "frame" their objectives, have had great success. While liberal politicians have largely failed to appreciate how these "frames" create and manipulate the values that voters will support.
Buy and read this book if you want to be a more responsible and informed citizen voter in a message saturated political environment.
Book Description
When Joe Trippi signed on to run Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, the long–shot candidate had 432 known supporters and $100,000 in the bank. Within a year, Trippi and his team had transformed the most obscure candidate in the field into a Democratic front–runner with a groundswell of 640,000 supporters and more money than any Democrat in history –– mostly through donations of one hundred dollars or less. Trippi's revolutionary use of the Internet and an impassioned, contagious desire to overthrow politics as usual grew into a national grassroots movement and changed the face of politics forever.
As Trippi argues persuasively, the Internet is distributing power to the people right now. And the companies that understand the coming revolution will be the first movers in this new era, while those that wait will be left behind. From his behind–the–scenes look at Dean's shocking rise and fall to his "seven inviolable, irrefutable, ingenious things your business or institution or candidate can do in the age of the Internet that might keep you from getting your ass kicked, but then again might not," Joe Trippi offers an inspiring glimpse of the world we are becoming. And he shows how power, in the hands of all of us, changes everything.
Customer Reviews:
Glean Don't Read.......2007-07-26
I recommend this book to many people who are not experienced with online communities or who persist, even in 2007, in thinking that online relationships are less important than real world interaction.
Trippi is too enamored of the political process. He glamorizes the personalities. The middle of the book is more like a political memoir than an account of how to overthrow everything.
However, if the reader has tolerance for these short comings, there are many insights to be gleaned from what the Dean campaign experienced. I say what the campaign experienced rather than what they did because the biggest take away from the book is that communities happen. They are not manufactured.
The campaign found itself in the middle of a community of interest. They had the sense to know when to lead and when to follow. Our skeptical managers, CEOs, politicians, etc. who still don't understand the online environment should read this book.
Happening NOW.......2007-05-30
Great Read, and it gave me the insight to realize what is currently taking place despite the denial from the mainstream media. RON PAUL will be the next President of the USA.
Really informative.......2007-01-24
I had to buy this book for a college class, and it turned out to be surprisingly interesting and informative at the same time. I actually enjoyed reading this book, and learned a lot about the life of someone involved in a political campaign as well as more details about how the Dean campaign really did pioneer in the world of online politics.
Joe Trippi just doesn't get it.......2006-06-24
Trippi was one of the first to make use of the Internet in presidential campaign politics. Using Blogs, using MeetUp.com and the like, Trippi generated a grassroots movement for Howard Dean's campaign.
Young people jumped on the bandwagon quickly. The Internet made that possible, but the Internet did not and does not provide motivation. WHY did people start blogging for Dean, holding meetings for Dean? Trippi admits that he does not know why. Yet, this is the crux of the matter. Trippi also admits that to some extent, "the people" took the campaign out of their hands and ran with it. But why?
PC (Political Correctness) is a set of passionately held beliefs and policies that already existed before the campaign started. By signaling across the Internet that Dean's was to be a PC campaign (and without consulting Dean himself), Trippi already had a readymade constituency out there passionately committed. But Joe doesn't see this. He just doesn't get it. And to Joe, PC is as self-evident as the axioms of Euclid.
There was constant struggle between Dean and Trippi over positions and statements. Trippi wanted to run the campaign, even writing speeches for Dean, determining positions, stances and the rest. Dean resisted. At one point, Dean described himself as a "centrist". Can you believe that, knowing what you do about the Dean campaign?! Trippi describes himself as a "liberal". Ultimately, Dean fired Trippi; but it was too late.
Trippi in fact is not a liberal. He is a Political Correctist. Most people, including Trippi, don't know the difference between liberalism and PC, and the PC people do everything in their power to tell people that there is no difference. This is not the place to go into it. Interested readers should read The Rape of Alma Mater. But one instance from Trippi's book should give a clue. While a student at San Jose State College, Joe led a boycott against his father's small florist shop because his father kept his modest savings at the neighborhood bank, which happened to be Bank of America, which did business with South Africa, and it was politically incorrect to do business with South Africa. And to Joe, this boycott was the right thing to do. He still thinks so.
This book is a minute-by-minute account of the campaign. It is nothing if not repetitious. Every paragraph repeats the litany that "the people" were running the campaign. Toward the end, however, Trippi admits that one has to do business as usual and buy TV time, etc.
Joe Trippi is still running an Internet campaign, trying to insure that PC is triumphant at last. He may win. If that sounds like good news to you, you just don't get it. PC is the death of liberalism, and vice versa.
Accepting transparency.......2006-06-08
This was a good book connecting communication facilitated by the internet to the concept of organizational health. In a nutshell the internet can hurt or help an organization depending on its attitude about transparency. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Book Description
The Reasoning Voter is an insider's look at campaigns, candidates, media, and voters that convincingly argues that voters make informed logical choices. Samuel L. Popkin analyzes three primary campaigns—Carter in 1976; Bush and Reagan in 1980; and Hart, Mondale, and Jackson in 1984—to arrive at a new model of the way voters sort through commercials and sound bites to choose a candidate. Drawing on insights from economics and cognitive psychology, he convincingly demonstrates that, as trivial as campaigns often appear, they provide voters with a surprising amount of information on a candidate's views and skills. For all their shortcomings, campaigns do matter.
"If you're preparing to run a presidential campaign, and only have time to read one book, make sure to read Sam Popkin's The Reasoning Voter. If you have time to read two books, read The Reasoning Voter twice."—James Carville, Senior Stategist, Clinton/Gore '92
"A fresh and subtle analysis of voter behavior."—Thomas Byrne Edsall, New York Review of Books
"Professor Popkin has brought V.O. Key's contention that voters are rational into the media age. This book is a useful rebuttal to the cynical view that politics is a wholly contrived business, in which unscrupulous operatives manipulate the emotions of distrustful but gullible citizens. The reality, he shows, is both more complex and more hopeful than that."—David S. Broder, The Washington Post
Customer Reviews:
Overrated.......2007-09-20
Largely overrated work of political science. Noble effort at bridging diverse strands of research into a single theory, but evidentiary support for argument simply insufficient. Chapters on primaries remain interesting, yet irrelevant at best...harmful to author's theoretical framework at worst.
Part Brilliant.... Part Horrible............2007-07-20
This book describes in great detail everything that you could possibly want to know about presidential primaries and the general elections. Popkin does a wonderful job in breaking down the politics behind presidential campaigns. The only problem with it is that it is horribly written, which seriously detracts from the overall message. It is way too dense to be considered as the masterpiece which the other amazon reviewers claim it to be.
I am a true believer that for ANY book to be a five star book, the reader should not have to suffer through its prose. I suffered through this book, despite the fact that the content was terribly interesting. Maybe next time he writes a book, he can work together with one of his contemporaries who can actually write.
I have read thousands of books and this was one of the ones that I found to be the most troubling... Part brilliant, part horrible.... that just does not happen every day.
read it again.......2001-09-09
A friend of mine told me: "If you are a candidate and you only have time to read one book during your campaign, you must read it. If you have time to read two books, you must read it twice." This book is simply excellent.
I learned so much.......2001-01-05
nuff said. Hands down best in subject matter.
A misguided, poorly written, painfully arrogant analysis.......1999-11-06
"The Reasoning Voter" has all of the marks of an academic wannabe who suggests the American people really aren't so stupid. Pity the students who buy this book--they're the only one who do, to be sure.
Book Description
With careful attention and hard work, even average citizens can oversee sophisticated, state-of-the-art political campaigns. Those who try will find no aid more valuable than this book. Bringing to bear both academic and professional experience, Shea and Burton present a lively, comprehensive exploration of cutting-edge political campaign management. They cover every aspect of present-day political campaigning, from understanding the context of a particular campaign (national trends, the media market, demographic research, etc.) to strategic thinking and specific voter contact techniques that work. These techniques include tactical use of fundraising, paid media, free media--including the Internet--and get-out-the-vote drives. Throughout the text, the authors present up-to-date analysis, peppered with examples from national, state, and local campaigns. Campaign Craft is a comprehensive guide to modern electioneering--a "must read" for candidates and political activists, scholars, researchers, and all those interested in knowing how to run modern, high-tech campaigns.
Customer Reviews:
Good not great, still the most complete book I've read on the subject........2007-09-06
Good book, not great. The beginning of the book starts off really strong with the technical tools people use to win elections. About midway through the book it starts to give really vague overviews of public relations tactics. I can't recall the book mentioning anything about brand image, which in my opinion, is very important to any campaign. I would recommend buying this book with, Making News by David Henderson, The Boston Consulting Group on Strategy, Public Relations by Bernays, and a good text on branding and brand management.
Book Description
Americans tend to see negative campaign ads as just that: negative. Pundits, journalists, voters, and scholars frequently complain that such ads undermine elections and even democratic government itself. But John G. Geer here takes the opposite stance, arguing that when political candidates attack each other, raising doubts about each other’s views and qualifications, voters—and the democratic process—benefit.
In Defense of Negativity, Geer’s study of negative advertising in presidential campaigns from 1960 to 2004, asserts that the proliferating attack ads are far more likely than positive ads to focus on salient political issues, rather than politicians’ personal characteristics. Accordingly, the ads enrich the democratic process, providing voters with relevant and substantial information before they head to the polls.
An important and timely contribution to American political discourse, In Defense of Negativity concludes that if we want campaigns to grapple with relevant issues and address real problems, negative ads just might be the solution.
Average customer rating:
|
The People's Voice: An Annotated Bibliography of American Presidential Campaign Newspapers, 1828-1984 (Bibliographies and Indexes in American History)
Manufacturer: Greenwood Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
History & Theory
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Bibliographies & Indexes
| Publishing & Books
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
History
| Bibliographies & Indexes
| Publishing & Books
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Literature
| Bibliographies & Indexes
| Publishing & Books
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Politics
| Bibliographies & Indexes
| Publishing & Books
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Communication
| Words & Language
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0313239762 |
Book Description
Since 1828, every four years has seen the re-emergence of newspapers published on behalf of particular presidential candidates and aspirants. Despite the importance and longevity of the medium, however, it has largely been overlooked as an object of serious study. This volume is the only systematic treatment of the subject yet published. It presents both an historical overview and the first compilation of bibliographic data on the publications that comprise this genre. Following an introductory survey of the history of the campaign newspaper and a discussion of significant examples, the bibliography provides listings for newspapers supporting major-party and third-party candidates and other presidential hopefuls.
Amazon.com
Thomas E. Patterson, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, argues that the process of electing presidents to office is "out of order." The culprits include poorly planned performances by the news media in which newscasters speak more than candidates and the numerous primaries that only weaken the parties and create a vacuum of political leadership. Patterson calls for a shortened nominating primary season--just six weeks--and an institutionalized televised forum in which candidates could speak, debate and be questioned. Until this is done, he maintains, American will suffer from a lack of communication of the issues and an incomplete translation of voter feedback, things that smack of the demise of democracy.
Customer Reviews:
A Devastating Critique of Media Coverage of Presidential Races.......2007-07-21
If you are unhappy about press coverage for a Presidential candidate you are supporting, you will love this book. The author offers detailed examples from both daily press coverage and scholarly articles and books as to how the media is harming American democracy by trivializing the campaigns and obscuring the messages the candidates are trying to get out. He thinks all major party candidates are poorly covered, and he unhappily blames the media for Ross Perot's strong 1992 showing.
The author blames the McGovern-Fraser Commission of 1969-1970 for empowering the press to play a major political role under the guise of opening up the system to the voters and taking control away from party bosses. He believes the party bosses produced far better candidates and Presidents--Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson--than did the voters. This reviewer certainly agrees that the boldness of Presidential leadership has become greatly attenuated in the modern era.
The author blames the media for relentless negative coverage which demeans government and the Presidency in the eyes of the people, and thus makes governing effectively extremely difficult. The greater the exposure to media coverage, the more negative toward the candidates the voters feel.
The media, he says, is a "miscast institution" in the Presidential primary process. They are concerned with what is new and newsworthy, and not what is significant over the long run. The voters are much more concerned with issues of long-range significance than the media is, he argues. A position paper on a major issue will perhaps get a day's worth of coverage, while a gaffe by the candidate can last for a week or two or more.
The media, he finds, is more about game than governing. The initiatives of candidates to build a broad coalition capable of leading our country is reduced to game elements. We learn of day by day strategical considerations, but do not learn of consistently pursued goals over the length of the candidate's career. The candidate is left with having who he or she is personified by strategical campaign decisions, since the candidate's record and plans for the future are essentially only on the table on those rare occasions--often in new media--where the candidate can get his or her message across without having it distorted by media interpretation.
The images of the campaign are all important. Media coverage can create a bandwagon effect, where candidates are backed by voters largely because other voters are backing them. He quotes the Markle Commission analysis of the 1988 Presidential campaign: "Viewers and readers are implicitly invited to assume that the strategic political game is a worthy and possibly a sufficent test of suitablity for office, and that the shrewdest candidate with the most effective campaign both wins and deserves the Presidency for that reason alone."
The author's conclusion about campaign imagery states that "The voters, as V.O. Key noted, 'are not fools.' But their decisions can be foolish when they are forced to choice without adequate guidance. They depend on the press for information about the candidates. Much of the information they receive is useful, but much of it consists of fanciful imagery."
There is a major difference, the author writes, between reporter' issues and voters' issues. Reporters want to know what a candidate thinks about what a rival did last night, while voters want to know what the candidate will do that affects their lives if he or she is elected President. The voter issues are gnerally far more relevant to the actual conduct of the Presidency than are the media issues.
The author quotes Walter Lippman, a keen Washington observer from the administration of Woodrow Wilson to that of Lyndon Johnson, many times, including the Lippman quote that "News and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished." News, Lippman says, is found in particular events rather than in the underlying forces that create them. News is a small and unrepresentative manifestation of a vastly more intricate reality. It is what is new and out of the ordinary and thus atypical and a weak base for judging trends that are powerful and lasting.
The author further blames the media for its fascination with early winners and electability, and says that these foci "fails to distribute power evenly across the electorate." He sees the media as especially strong in primaries, where "Voters are not anchored by party loyalties, and most of them are feebly motivated and poorly informed. In these circumstances, the press' interpretations of wht is happening in the race, and the glare of its spotlight, can significantly influence the vote."
He calls the voter's process of decision the "whimsical vote" and says it is analagous to Herbert Krugman's "learning without involvement" in which "attitudes and motiavations are weak, but people do absorb some information. People 'learn ' the message, and since they are 'uninvolved' do not resist it." This contrasts with a "situation where people have strong attitudes" and "information is tested against existing beliefs, and affected by these beliefs....In this case, the individual is largely in control. Wheras, in the case of 'learning without involvement,' power rests primarily with the communicator."
The way to fix the campaign, the author concludes, is to shorten it. He envisions primaries right before the national conventions. What is actually happening, of course, is that the nomination process is being shortened to end in February, but the campaign is being lengthened, with a long period of two virtual nominees facing each other.
It is difficult for any review to do this book justice. The arguments the author makes are so filled with facts and cogent analysis that they are not easy to adequately summarize. Few sentences are wasted. Few references to scholarly texts can be dismissed as being pedantic, and few references to actual media coverage can be dismissed as anecdotal irrelevance.
With a scope of coverage from the election of John Kennedy in 1960 to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, as well as prior historical references, this book may well be the most thorough and analytical treatment of the modern Presidential nominating process ever written. No reporter should attempt to cover a Presidential campaign without it. No candidate or campaign manager should attempt to win the Presidency without studying it closely.
A Must Read.......2005-02-22
This book is a must-read for any student of the media or politics. Thomas Patterson writes a terrific critique of the role the media has played in corrupting politics - particularly the political election process - arguing persuasively that things are now "out of order." Patterson provides numerous examples of how the media has negatively impacted elections. Some of these are:
1. Articles about campaigns focus on the "horse race," or the constant jockeying between candidates and their campaigns, rather than on the actual platforms of the candidates or the important issues being discussed.
2. Great emphasis is placed on poll results, and on candidates' rise and fall in the polls, rather than on their stated goals or positions on various issues.
3. Reporters travel around with a candidate for months on end (as the candidate travels around the country or state to meet with voters) and as a result start focusing more on internal problems within the campaign (campaign staffers disagreeing with each other, for example) than on the substance of the candidates' speeches. Minor gaffes, such as a candidate tripping, or a candidate's spouse saying something odd, take on much greater importance in the media than they should.
4. Media "talking heads" become celebrities in their own right and dominate news casts. They may show 30 seconds of a candidate's speech and then spend 5 minutes talking about their spin on the speech. This hardly gives the candidate much opportunity to communicate directly with the voter.
We've gotten to the point now where a substantial portion of articles about campaigns tell you everything about the campaigns *except* for the candidates' stances on actual issues. Patterson proposes a number of remedies for this: shorten the nominating primary season to 6 weeks, and make it so that candidates all have the opportunity to communicate with the electorate in some sort of national broadcast. Patterson believes that this will help reduce the impact of the media on the election and give the candidates a more direct communication vehicle with voters.
This is a fascinating read, and it has greatly influenced my understanding of the media and how it affects politics. I highly recommend it.
Not bad.......2001-11-01
My jerk, hippy, liberally biased professor made Out of Order a required reading. So I went into it expecting to cringe with disagreement. A nice surprise to me, what Patterson had to say was well thought out and really made a lot of good points about the media and its role in elections. It was a bit repetitive at times but I don't even care because it was the only book that I didn't loathe reading in my government class.
A must have.......2000-11-15
This book was required reading for a seminar and I found it very beneficial in understanding the strained relationship between two groups with conflicting goals: the media and elected officials.
I especially enjoyed his analysis on reporters making news with their interpretation of the facts.
I'm very excited to add that I will be meeting Tom Patterson and hope he will expand upon his books results as they relate to our current political situation. I welcome any questions you would like me to submit.
Especially relevant this year.......2000-10-11
Thomas Patterson's sweeping indictment of the media is especially relevant this election year. The press is once again fulfilling Patterson's worst predictions of its behavior and making it easy to agree with his thesis that the media is failing its duties and harming our political process.
Patterson makes many points, but his central ones are below, and it's easy to find supporting examples from the 2000 campaign cycle:
1. The press sees the election as a game, not a democratic process. Its news stories are focused on the candidates' strategy, not their views, and makes the candidates look shallow and pandering as a result.
2. The tone of the news is generally negative. Candidates are relentlessly criticized and negative stories are much more frequent than positive ones.
3. The press focuses far too much on gaffes and trivialities. In the 2000 campaign, Bush's RATS ad and Gore's simple misstatements have resulted in feeding frenzies portraying both candidates as untrustworthy.
4. Journalists have become the center of the news. Much of the news has reporters' own interpretations as the main story (In an attempt to bolster his support among elderly voters, Bush/Gore ...), instead of quoting the candidates at length.
The inescapable conclusion is that the media is failing to inform the public of the important issues in a presidential campaign and contributes greatly to our general lack of faith in our political system.
Amazon.com
For pure political drama at the height of election season, there's nothing quite like a televised presidential debate. Though the candidates are stringently prepped before entering the event, surprises and raw candor often slip through as voters get their best opportunity to make direct comparisons. But according to author George Farah, Americans are not getting all the drama they're entitled to. Through the combined efforts of the Democratic and Republican establishments, legitimate third-party candidates are denied an arena to present their views, usually based on the notion that they are not viable contenders. This leads to a tautological situation: they can't debate because they aren't viable and they aren't viable because they're not allowed to debate. In No Debate, Farah provides extensive background on how the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), dominated by Democratic and Republican party operatives, took over the debate process from more non-partisan groups and then entrenched their parties in power. Farah also provides illuminating insight on how, despite such collusion, the major parties continued to joust for power, telling of when the Clinton campaign feigned a desire to include Ross Perot the 1996 debates and agreed to drop the demand only when the hapless Dole camp caved in on all other issues. All of these backroom deals and shenanigans undermine democracy itself, according to Farah, as the electorate is denied access to ideas outside the self-perpetuating dominant parties and is thus disenfranchised from open democracy. To remedy the problem, Farah also proposes to return power of the debates to a non-partisan panel of citizen experts. The magnitude of the entrenchment problem Farah describes bodes ill for the implementation of his proposals, but No Debate is sure to make one watch more skeptically the next time presidential hopefuls approach the podium. --John Moe
Book Description
The presidential debates are the "Super Bowl of politics": the democratic centerpiece of the election season. These quadrennial confrontations-broadcast to tens of millions of Americans-are the only decisive political discussion between the candidates to which an ever-increasing number of unaffiliated voters may look. Yet the two major parties dictate almost every aspect of the event, stifling broad electoral choice.
In No Debate, author and lobbyist George Farah uses the lens of the presidential election, an event he argues is singularly important to our electoral democracy, to examine just how open America's elections may or may not be.
Central to his argument is the national debate sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates, an ostensibly nonpartisan group which Farah exposes as an arm's length organ of the major parties to keep out viable third parties. In this meticulously researched exposé, Farah finds a determinedly collusive commission, its board boasting some of the most powerful partisans in the country, through which tax-deductible corporate political donations to both major parties are funneled.
Along the way, Farah examines the backroom maneuverings and political calculations of the major parties: from Ross Perot's strategic debate invitation in 1992, to his exclusion in 1996, to the treatment of Buchanan and Nader in the 2000 election. With startling clarity No Debate documents a grievous institutional rigging of the electoral process, wherein glorified news conferences pass as debate and the two parties call the shots at the electorate's expense.
George Farah is the founder and executive director of Open Debates, a Washington-based nonprofit focused on reforming the presidential debate process. His articles have appeared in Harvard Law Record, Extra! and Princeton's Progressive Review.
Customer Reviews:
Shaping future debates.......2007-09-28
I am a little behind in my reading, but I have been thinking about this text and feel that No Debate challenges the status quo, but additionally, has already influenced the shape of current debates. UTube has found a presence not seen before and multimedia will continue to reinvent modern elections. What I particularly liked about the book (I am not done) is the author's suggested action items. This book does not whine and leave us wondering "what should we do?". Instead, Farah offers intelligent alternatives and I believe we are seeing some of this put into motion already. What will be next for the this author?
Absolutely Necessary Reading.......2004-09-26
Remember that totally boring debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000? Why so much agreeing with each other, why was there no REAL debate going on? Well this book takes that issue head on, and it's about time someone did. These debates are shown for what they truly are, which is orchestrated soundbites. The two party duopoly has monopilized this venue so that other parties/issues cannot invade their control of the subjects and issues of the election.
Mark my words: if this control of the debate continues than less and less voters will show up to the booths. And also, if John Kerry is stupid enough to agree to a protocol for the debate as was done in debates past, he will certainly lose the election because you have to catch George W. Bush off gaurd to see what he's really made of.
A Must Read for People Concerned About Democracy.......2004-05-02
This is a must read for anyone who has found American politics to be oddly and uncomfortably narrow. Have you ever wondered why you don't get to see some of the candidates you want see, like Perot, Nader, and Buchanan? Have you ever wondered why you don't hear about some critical issues, like free trade, government waste, immigration, child poverty, and media concentration? Have you ever wondered why you only hear a series of boring, memorized soundbites, rather than actual discussion between the candidates? In this book, No Debate, George Farah shows just how the Republican and Democratic candidates secretly collude to control, manipulate, and ultimately ruin the most important public forum for the education of the American people - the presidential debates. The presidential debates are the gatekeeper to the election, and when you keep candidates and issues out of the debates, you keep them out of American politics. Farah's book is a truly fascinating exposé of the major party candidates' behind-the-scenes manipulation of the debates, replete with stunning quotes and entertaining anecdotes. Did you know that Perot was included in the 1992 presidential debates because President Bush - who ultimately blamed Perot for costing him the election -- demanded that Perot be included? The book reads with remarkable clarity and refreshing speed, and ends with a proposal for reform that is, in fact, being pushed by leading conservative, liberal, and centrist civic leaders. If you care about democracy and you're tired of being deceived, No Debate is a must read.
A necessary step in achieving political change in America.......2004-04-13
George Farah writes about the current organization that orchestrates the Presidential debates, including its history and the details of how it operates. According to Farah, the Commission on Presidential Debates is not the nonpartisan organization it claims to be, but instead is a bipartisan, corporate sponsored front for the Republican and Democratic parties controlled by the campaigns of the Republican and Democratic nominees. The author points out in great detail the hypocrisies, lies, and manipulations the two parties, the Commission members, and the campaigns engage in to maintain the domination of the two major parties in the debates. He concludes his book by presenting the formation of the Citizens' Debate Commission and the principles under which this new Commission would operate. To those who are interested in how our political system operates and how we might improve it, this book not only offers insight, it offers an alternative to the current system which is a blight on a free and democratic society. The book includes two appendices. The first is a document from the 1996 presidential campaign entitled 'Memorandum of Understanding' which is the agreement reached between the Clinton and Dole campaigns as to all the particulars of how the debate will be conducted. These memorandums are rubber stamped by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The second appendix is a press release from the Democratic and Republican parties indicating the formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates. This document is replete with a lot of civic high mindedness for the formation of this organization which in reality serves the two major parties and not the interests of the American electorate.
Average customer rating:
- Kalb's Epilogue Memories of Watergate, nails the coffin shut
|
The Nixon Memo: Political Respectability, Russia, and the Press
Marvin Kalb
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
Political
| Leaders & Notable People
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
General
| 20th Century
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Relations
| International
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Media Studies
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Media & Politics
| Communication
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Federal Government
| Levels of Government
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Journalism
| Writing
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0226422992 |
Book Description
An absorbing example of political journalism, The Nixon Memo is a case study of Richard Nixon's relentless quest for political rehabilitation. At issue is the key role of this former president of the United States (best known for his involvement in the famous "watergate" scandal) in the post-cold war debate about aiding Russia in its uncertain revolution.
The story begins on March 10, 1992. Nixon had written a private memo critical of president George Bush's policy toward Russia. The memo leaked and exploded on the front page of The New York Times. Why would Nixon attack Bush, a fellow party member fighting for re-election? Why on an issue of foreign affairs, which was Bush's strength? The questions are as intriguing as the answers, and distinguished journalist and scholar Marvin Kalb offers a suspenseful, eye-opening account of how our conventional wisdom on United States foreign policy is shaped by the insider's game of press/politics.
This story of Nixon's Machiavellian efforts to pressure the White House, by way of the press, into helping Boris Yeltsin and Russia sheds new light on the inner workings of the world inside the government of the United States. Marvin Kalb read the documents behind the Nixon memo and interviewed scores of journalists, scholars, and officials in and from Washington and Moscow. Drawing on his years of experience as a diplomatic correspondent, he identifies and illuminates the intersection of press and politics in the fashioning of public policy.
"An absorbing and often compelling argument that Richard Nixon directed his own political rehabilitation on the world stage, using presidents, lesser politicians, and the press as his supporting cast. This is a first-class job of unraveling a complex and usually unseen tapestry."—Ted Koppel
"With Marvin Kalb's captivating account, Richard Nixon continues to fascinate us even in death."—Al Hunt
Customer Reviews:
Kalb's Epilogue Memories of Watergate, nails the coffin shut.......2004-11-15
Although this book from the University of Chicago Press exhibits the character of media coverage about former President Nixon from early in 1992 until Nixon's funeral in 1994 quite accurately, I failed to agree with the tone in which his disgrace is continually hammered away at. Unlike feeling bad about a recent election, my sympathy with Richard Nixon is due to my desire to echo a complaint from his final press conference after losing an election in California in 1962, when he blamed the press for not having a single reporter who wrote whatever the candidate said. The complaint that I would like to make in this review goes much deeper. Reviling Nixon as I do, it is ultimately ironic that I find his sympathy for democracy in Russia much more appealing than the glory of gloating on being the lone surviving superpower, an approach to global politics that American political thinking was engaging in back in 1992 and still has not yet shaken off, which is particularly glaring in the never-ending struggle to impose regional changes in 2004 in places like Baghdad. If anything, the efforts of the current Bush administration to spread democracy in the times and places of its choosing seem so unlikely and altogether much worse than whatever Nixon was suggesting in 1992 that it is almost unthinkable that any policy expert at this late date could even guess: what was Nixon thinking? Comedians had provided audiences with some of their greatest laughs by contemplating that question, and this book is perfectly clear on that in the final paragraph of chapter nine:
National Public Radio, usually sober in its presentation of the news, was struck by the fact that Bush and Clinton had both delivered their speeches on April 1--April Fool's Day. The afternoon program "Talk of the Nation" invited Rich Little to do one of his famous Richard Nixon impersonations on the air. "Having marched up this hard road and won back your confidence," Little/Nixon pronounced, "I ask you once again to make me your President." The phones "went berserk," said an NPR spokesperson, obliging the network to confess that it was all a joke. (pp. 138-139).
Nixon then went to Russia and met with Yeltsin on June 4, 1992, and "on February 10, 1993, soon after Clinton took office, a totally different kind of discussion took place." (p. 141). Like talking about small change today, Nixon thought he might be able to help with "rescheduling Russia's huge $84 billion foreign debt for fifteen years." (p. 142). As Nixon said, "One of the things that is absolutely essential is that we not consider Russia to be a defeated enemy." (p. 144). I never hear anyone saying that about Osama bin Laden, but he probably isn't talking to former American presidents right now.
Nixon met with Clinton, who was "looking for a way to help Russia without having to come up with new money. . . . For reasons ranging from strict regulations imposed by the International Monetary Fund to bureaucratic chaos in Russia, less than half of the money had actually been delivered, much of it in grain credits, which helped feed the Russian people but also increased Russia's foreign debt." (p. 158).
This book is almost about intellectual respectability. Names dropped in June, 1994, can still sound impressive: Graham Allison, dean of the Kennedy School at Harvard; Thomas Friedman, diplomatic correspondent of The New York Times and author of a front page article on March 10, 1992, with the headline, "Nixon Scoffs at Level of Support for Russian Democracy by Bush." I wish there was an easy way to describe the manner in which the point of view adopted by Marvin Kalb, formerly moderator of "Meet the Press," in THE NIXON MEMO harps on Nixon's personal flaws to undercut the point on American foreign policy being promoted by Nixon in March, 1992. Nixon feared that Russia could reemerge as a major problem for the United States, but in a larger sense, the failure of the American political system to come up with any decent solutions for places like Russia, then or now, leaves those who read the papers following stories which are all boiled down to individual self-promotion. Expecting anything from Nixon that might continue to make sense is still unlikely in a perfect world, and on Comedy Central could be considered as crazy as any other journalistic assignment. A rare moment of reverence, much noted and largely adhered to by news media thereafter, was reflected in the way that American reaction to September 11, 2001, became a factor in promoting the belief that Americans needed to rally behind the efforts of our president at that dismal time to join in his war on terror.
The index on pages 229-248 has many distinguished names and topics. An appendix on pages 217-223 has Nixon's memo, How to Lose the Cold War. It starts with Russia, mentions "President Yeltsin's economic reforms" on page 218, as well as, "If Yeltsin fails, the prospects for the next fifty years will turn grim." Nixon praises Yeltsin for `throwing away the keys of what Lenin called the "jailhouse of nations".' (p. 219). "He has moved decisively toward privatization of Soviet enterprises and decollectivization of Soviet agriculture, steps Gorbachev refused even to consider." (pp. 219-220). "If Yeltsin is replaced by a new aggressive Russian nationalist, we can kiss the peace dividend good-bye." (p. 222). "Most important, a democratic Russia would be a non-expansionist Russia, freeing our children and grandchildren in the next century of the fear of armed conflict because democracies do not start wars." (p. 222). Sure, this sounds like the same old, same old Nixon to some people, and Wilsonian democratic Crusades are as popular as ever now. This book dotes on how such policies are seen by the press.
Average customer rating:
|
Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy (Lea's Communication)
Sidney Kraus
Manufacturer: Lawrence Erlbaum
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
Elections
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Practical Politics
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Media Studies
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Federal Government
| Levels of Government
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Elections
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Communication
| Words & Language
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Arts & Photography
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 0805816038 |
Book Description
With this second edition, Kraus continues his examination of formal presidential debates, considering the experience of television in presidential elections, reviewing what has been learned about televised debates, and evaluating that knowledge in the context of the election process, specifically, and the political process, generally. He also examines the media and the role they occupy in presidential elections. Because critics often refer to the Lincoln-Douglas debates when reproaching presidential debates, comparisons of the two are discussed throughout the book. Much of the data and information for this accounting of televised presidential debates comes from the author's first-hand experience as one who was involved with these debates as a participant observer, on site at nearly all of the debates discussed.
Throughout these discussions, emphasis is placed on the implications for public policy. To suggest policy that will be accepted and adopted by politicians and the public is, at best, difficult. Proposals for changes in public policy based on experience -- even when scientific data support those changes -- must be subjected to an assessment of the values and predispositions of the proponent. These values and predispositions, however, may not necessarily inhibit the proponent's objectivity. As such, this review of television use in the presidential election process provides the context for examining televised debates.
Books:
- Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease: The Only System Scientifically Proven to Reverse Heart Disease Without Drugs or Surgery
- Duct Tape Marketing: The World's Most Practical Small Business Marketing Guide
- e-Business: Organizational and Technical Foundations
- eBay Powerseller Secrets:Insider Tips from eBay's Most Successful Sellers
- Effort-Less Marketing for Financial Advisors
- Emotion Marketing: The Hallmark Way of Winning Customers for Life
- Essentials of Contemporary Advertising
- Five Star Service, One Star Budget: How to Create Magic Moments for Your Customers That Get You Noticed, Remembered and Referred
- Fourth Generation R&D: Managing Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation
- Global Marketing (4th Edition) (Pie)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Cambridge History of China
- How Clean Is Your House
- What Price Hollywood
- West's Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases--Ethical, Regulatory, International and E-Comme
- Business Data Communications
- Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 5th Edition
- Fodor's Maine Coast, 1st Edition
- Reorganising Power in Indonesia: The Politics of Oligarchy in an Age of Markets
- Two Cheers for Capitalism
- Acoustical Signal Processing in the Central Auditory System
Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think
Metaphors We Live By
Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision
What's The Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won The Heart Of America
Whose Freedom?: The Battle over America's Most Important Idea
