Radio Smart Talk for Monday, June 27:
Presidential candidates in the new media age face unprecedented scrutiny, as the public seeks to learn more about a given candidate's background, opinions, experience, knowledge and character. Along the way, opponents seek to diminish the candidate's positive attributes, while highlighting the negatives. Meanwhile, the candidate seeks to gloss over any faults, and brag about any accomplishments. Pundits amplify those extreme views, and then comedians make fun of them, reinforcing them further.
The result? Our presidential candidates become caricatures – extreme representations of what may actually be true.
But – and here's a loaded question – so what?
Does it matter when Sarah Palin gets her facts wrong, or that Bill Clinton lied about having an affair? Are scandals, eccentricities, and mistakes like these really the grounds on which we decide who should be President?
We'll explore just what does matter, and what should matter, during presidential election campaigns with political scientists Dr. Terry Madonna and Dr. Mike Young.
LISTEN TO PROGRAM:
comments
I always appreciate your thoughtful comments.
It is fascinating that both Truman and LBJ got much higher ratings from historians after they were out of office and many people would agree that they suffered in comparison to their predecessors. Today Truman is often listed in the top tier of presidents for his leadership abilities. LBJ on the other hand will never escape his Vietnam policies and expanding the war. His passage of the Civil Rights bill and other domestic policies get lost because of Vietnam. A Radio Smart Talk program on President Johnson and the 60s -- that influence us even today -- may be interesting.
We got several "bring back Harry Truman" type comments on today's program. There seems to be a large segment of voters who would love to hear candidates be blunt and honest like Truman.
From my own observations, it appears that many voters would agree with you on the characteristics that would be ideal in a presidential candidate.
*http://history.howstuffworks.com/world-war-ii/the-united-states-enters-world-war-ii-1941.htm/printable
As to the Johnson program, That would be interesting - the contrast of the '64 Democratic landslide to the civil rights act that a southern man had to know would hurt the future political aspirations of the party and it did by 1968 with the former solid south departing the Dems to Wallace's Amer. Indep. Pty.
Furthermore is it coincidence that every Dem President since has been southern? (Except Obama)
one is that money needs to be taken completely out of political campaigns.
Public money can fund TV debates, a small amount of public money could be given candidates for campaign expenses: no private donors, no self-funded campaigns.
And a shortened time in which to campaign.
Two, that the Presidency is totally overblown. We have a monarchy, whether we call it that or not.
The President should be reduced to again being a figurehead of State, an official greeter at the door. "Welcome to USA"
Our Presidency is the exact OPPOSITE of what George Washington et al wanted for America.
RSS feed for comments to this post