Cory Booker: A Politician for the People

    We always hear about politicians claiming to work for the rest of the population and how they try to understand what the rest of us are going through. However, one stand-out example of a politician actually committing to live like his constituents and share their experience with regards to food uncertainty is Newark mayor Cory Booker. If all goes as planned, Booker plans to, for a week in December, live solely on a budget of food stamps, or SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

   Rather than formally setting this up as a way to attract media attention and gain airtime which could further help and promote him in future campaigns, this idea was brought on quickly by the people. The challenge came about through an exchange on Twitter, a platform that Booker is well-known for using often. Cory Booker’s website demonstrates his commitment to using social media, especially Twitter, to connect to and speak with the people over a master medium. As we discussed the growing influence of political campaign websites, we can see how the Newark mayor’s (and his recently set up food stamp challenge) came about with the power of online users. Also, adaptability and interaction with voters is taken into account as Booker is very present within the social media world and takes Internet users’ messages to him into account, as is shown by the recent Twitter exchange, excerpts of which can be found here.

   Though this is a great way to connect with the people, the an ABC News article quotes the director of a branch of Food Bank Services who points out the limitations as “Even if Booker sticks to the dollar limit,” it is possible that the “experience might not replicate the exact experience of surviving on food stamps, because low-income families might not have the luxury of searching for the cheapest grocery stores.” Similarly, many without Internet connection may also not know of this challenge, since Booker’s online followers are a limited demographic. It is possible that some of the people he is trying to reach while taking the SNAP challenge may be unaware of it, as they may not have access to or be able to afford Internet, much as they may not have transportation options for finding food at the cheapest prices.

    The challenge is only set to last for a week, yet it highlights the importance of a politician relating to the people, especially as the challenge was suggested during a conversation with another Twitter user. As is expected, Booker’s website has since been updated, detailing his participation in the SNAP (or food stamp) challenge. This demonstrates the power of the Internet and social media as there was no press conference or formal media interest needed to set up the challenge. Instead, politicians, even at the local level, can connect with people all over the Internet (even though this demographic may not encompass everyone within a constituency) without worrying about media filter, and thus agree to participate in such challenges without first hearing about media backlash of such a move. I really hope that he follows through with the challenge and, in effect, encourages many other politicians to do the same, especially when the contrasting lifestyles of the rich and the poor are so often discussed without fully being understood by leaders helping to make and pass the laws.

Self-Educated or "Parakeet"- Children and Politics

There are a number of articles and sources that talk about how parents should address the topic of politics with their children. On one hand, it is extremely important for parents to introduce political concepts to their children, BUT is it possible that their political views will be influenced by these parents? This is where self-education comes in. Sometimes, children/ young adults are interested in politics to the point where they want to discover them on their own and develop their own views. However, often times (as was the case for my own interest in politics), children act as "parakeets" of their parent's political views. When I was younger and not able to vote, I found myself thinking that I did not understand the concept of being a Republican, but I knew that I was one. The truth of the matter is, it all comes down to communication and how these political ideas are addressed.

Today social media allows parents, who are struggling with how to introduce political concepts to their children, to interact with other parents who experience similar problems . Twitter feeds like Parents on Politics (which can be located here) provide parents with ideas on how to present this information as well as what other parents are thinking on the same topic. Another Twitter feed, also called Parents on Politics (found here) provides a bit more of a biased view as it "appears" to be a Democratic parent who enjoys tweeting about politics. Both of these offer different views on politics. While one is more of an input and helpful source, the other focuses on what someone thinks about political issues from a parent's perspective. Both feeds can help in the process of communicating politics to children in different ways. In another way, blogs like Parent's on Politics, offer a similar situation where parents can talk about how they addressed certain issues and how successful they have been. The blog offers a question of the week on popular political issues giving responding parents a good amount of response time.

As we have studied in class, social media has a huge impact on people's political ideals. Sites like the ones mentioned above are a form of communication that can assist in relaying messages to both,  parents who visit the sites and their children, should they decide to take the advice or address different topics. The way parents communicate the importance of politics determines whether the child will be self-educated on politics or a "parakeet" to their parent's own beliefs. A website on children's health says, "Knowing what kids think about these [political] issues and how they might affect your family is important. Talking about it not only helps to promote learning and develop critical thinking skills, but also lets you clarify any misconceptions your kids may have or calm any fears about the future." The article talks about how children are affected by social media in politics, though many parents like to believe that their children will not pick up on it. The article stresses how talking about politics with children also teaches them about the way the world works. The author suggests that parents who address political issues with their children, "keep it positive, be reassuring, and suggest they get involved." The truth is, the future of the United States' government will one day rely on these young peoples' votes and it is important that they are educated, even if they seem young. Also, articles stressing the importance of communication within the family have been published by The Huffington Post and The Wasington Post.

Saturday Night Live & Governor Chris Christie

            Governor Chris Christie Saturday Night Live

            This past weekend Governor Chris Christie made a cameo on Saturday Night Live to appear on the segment titled “Weekend Update” to discuss events post Hurricane Sandy. The link to the video is here. Governor Christie made fun of the impatience of New Jersey residents. He even poked fun at himself with his “Chris Christie: Governor” Fleece Jacket. The main focus is when Governor Christie said that he would not like to thank the “stupid mayors” who decided not to evacuate. I think that it’s very interesting when politicians poke fun at serious issues or scandals that they are involved. As a form of political communication, appearing on television shows such as SNL can help politicians clear the air and provide comfort and entertainment to the audience. 

            This relates to the media-politics relationship that we discussed in class, more specifically politicians influence on mainstreaming. We’ve talked about President Obama appearing on late night TV. Going on SNL and doing segments on late night TV can be used to get more positive coverage and/or providing neutral coverage. I think in particular for Governor Chris Christie on SNL provides him with more positive coverage as well as bringing more light to Hurricane Sandy as the recovery process takes place.  It’s actually quite interesting that Republicans are more likely to go on shows such as SNL than Democrats.

            Not only was this segment used as a chance to bring comedy to Hurricane Sandy, but it was also an opportunity for people to be thanked for all that they have done in helping with the hurricane relief. This segment in my opinion brings comedy and awareness together for the public. That is something that can really only be done in media. It’ll be interesting to see how in the future more and more politicians begin using media in that way. 

Who Runs The World (Women Politicians)

There were a lot of emotions on Election night, but from both parties that was something to celebrate: a record number of women in the US House of Representatives and US Congress.

On our first day in class, we discussed women's current status in politics. The number of Senators has increased from 17% to 20%, and the number of women in the House of Representatives has increased from 73 to 81 women. What these numbers mean is that women representation in Congress has now increased tenfold in the past twenty years. To put this great achievement in perspective, in 1991, when some of us were born, only 2 women were in the Senate. In 1992, which was laughably called "The Year of the Woman", 7 women comprised the Senate. 

For several states, women were elected into the Senate for the first time in their state's history. Elizabeth Warren won over Scott Brown in a close race in Massachusetts, as well as in Nebraska, Hawaii, and Wisconsin. New Hampshire is also the first state to have an all-female delegation and governor, with Governor-elect Maggie Hassan and Representatives-elect Carol Shea-Porter and Annie Kuster. Additionally, being a female is not the only thing that makes this 2012 election so historical. Wisconsin's first Senator, Tammy Baldwin, is the first openly gay senator in the history of this country. Senator-elect of Hawaii, Mazie Hirono, is the first Asian-American woman in the Senate, as well being the first Buddhist. And women's voices were heard in Missouri, where candidate Todd Akin tried to redefine rape earlier in the election season, and Claire McCaskill defeated him in a very close race. After a debate earlier this year, Akin had said that McCaskill was too "aggressive"and that she should have been more "ladylike", as in previous debates. He assumed her aggressiveness in the debate was a sign of weakness, that she was threatened. This statement sums up exactly what women have faced this election, and in many states have defeated - gendered communication behavior and the language expectancy theory that keeps women from being as assertive as men in the political communications. As we discussed in our negative advertising section of this semester, our gendered communication behavior assumes that feminine communication must be nurturing, passive, and cooperative, while masculine communication is combative, assertive, and aggressive. Thusly, women face a dilemma because in political communications like negative ads and debates, they are most characteristic of masculine communication. And when women are aggressive in debates they violate our expectations, and are less successful. This leaves women at a severe disadvantage, but this year women triumphantly overcame this disadvantage and made history with record numbers. 
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York told the Huffington Post last year why women are so important to American politics. "When women are part of the negotiation and are part of decision-making, the outcomes are just better," Gillibrand said, "When we have our dinners with the women in the Senate — the Democrats and Republicans — we have so much common ground. We agree on so many basic principles and values. I think if there were more women at the decision-making table, we would get more things done."
No matter how you felt after Election Night, we can all be very excited that women were the real victors this election season. Not only did they break barriers as women, but sexuality, religion, and race also made historic strides within American politics.  I think as students at a women's college, we can look at these historical results and appreciate how far women have come within our lifetime in American politics. I firmly believe that at this rate, we can hope to see a more balanced representation of women, 52% of the population, within the government.


Works Cited:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-campaign-women-idUSBRE8A62MG20121107
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/women-senate-2012-election_n_2086093.html
http://jezebel.com/5958472/lesbians-immigrants-and-harvard-professors-get-to-know-your-trailblazing-lady-senators

The Republican Party & Good Ol' Fashion PR

I read an opinion article on CNN (written by a Republican woman who also works for the American Unity PAC) about the Republican parties' need to reassess their demographic appeal. We discussed this issue in class and debated about whether or not the Republican Party needs to reassess their “target audience.” The Republican writer and politician of this article claims that change is mandatory if the Republicans want to get back into the oval office.

Essentially this article argues that the Republican Party does not need to change their platform issues, but change how Hispanic and younger voters understand those issues. The article said that Republicans missed out on the “millennial” and Hispanic vote. We are the millennials. Millennials are our generation. The Republican Party is concerned that they missed out on our generation. By the next presidential election, all millennials will be of age to vote, which adds up to 90 million voters. Clearly, this is a number that political parties want on their side.

Republicans are also concerned that they missed out on the Hispanic vote, specifically with millennial Hispanics. The DREAM act was an important deciding factor for many Hispanic millennials. For those of you who watched the second debate, you might have been equally as disappointed as I was with Romney’s response about the DREAM act. Romney admitted that it is not the child’s fault for living undocumented in the United States. He then went on to disappoint millennial supporters of the DREAM act by essentially saying his immigration policy is to have undocumented residents “voluntarily” turn themselves in. Why would a person ever do that? Because he will make conditions so unbearable for undocumented residents that they will not want to live in the United States anymore (not once did he mention that those undocumented residents probably fled their own country for unbearable living conditions and therefore will have no where safe to go). I digress…the point is that Romney most certainly did not win that vote.

So what should the Republican Party do? Improve their image and reputation with those voters of course (aka some good old fashion PR work…something we can understand very well as communication students)! I look forward to seeing how the Republican Party refocuses their message about the economy and the deficit to target younger voters. Republican politicians want to make millennial voters see how voting Republican would be good for their personal future. The Republican Party doesn’t have to change their platform issues and values, but instead change how younger voters and Hispanic voters understand those issues.

The writer of this article states that "'partisan self-identification' forms in new generations like cement – settling softly and hardening over time.” In my senior comp research I have learned that the political opinions formed during a student’s college-aged years are the political opinions that last a lifetime. Political parties would be wise to gain the support of this young demographic because they are most likely to have their support for the rest of their voting lives.

The question remains. Will Republicans make the necessary “marketing” changes to their party’s millennial and Hispanic voter appeal? I guess we will have to wait and find out.

The Land of the "Free" but not free enough

American is the land of the free, at least for those who allow it to be.  Following the 2012 presidential election some states decided that it wasn't free enough based on the re-election of President O'Bama. the amount of talk I heard amongst the public and of close friends about leaving the United States solely because of the reelection was appalling. Statistically there is nowhere else in the world that you will have the luxuries and freedoms that you will get living in the United States of America.  20 states have filled out petitions to secede from the union. The majority of the states are highly conservative. Those 20 states include; Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. As seen in the CBS News Article , Texas' reasoning petitioning is because they claim "the federal government's "neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending," arguing that "it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government." 

I think that all of the talk of this happening is absolutely ridiculous. I mite not be an O'Bama supporter but I do not believe that trying to get your state a secession from the union is not going to make any situation better for either party. If these people truly felt so strongly about the election than they should have gotten out there and helped the party of which they wanted to win campaign, and get people of their political party to the polls on election day. 

What's even worse than the 20 states that have petitioned is the fact that someone in every state has signed a petition. Just think, if these people in every 50 states would have been more involved, or proactive with the election, they could have made a difference. What's done is done, and they cant change anything at this point. Both candidates stressed greatly in their campaigns how important it was this year to get as many people to the polls as possible.

Even Texas's own governor Rick Perry gave this statement showing his commitment to his country,"believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it." which came from the Huffington post article that can be found here. The author of the article says that if you cant impress Rick Perry than you surely wont be able to pass the petition, yet Texas is still trying.

This whole situation is embarrassing to our country. The fact that a lot of the people causing these problems are those who are uneducated about politics and the current position/state of our government. Its ignorant people who think they are going to get away with stuff like seceding. I think it is pointless and a waste of their time. Maybe if they turned their energy and time into supporting their current president than we wouldn't be where we are today.

"I Have Evolved..."

As discussed in class talk radio is quite popular and can have a large influence on its audience. Talk radio is also largely political with half of all shows being about politics.  Talk radio show host Sean Hannity is well known for his conservative views; one can say he sets the standard for conservative voters on his popular radio talk show.   However, there are signs of change within the republican party as Sean Hannity ‘evolved’ on his views of immigration.

According to the Huffington Post, in the past few years democrats and republicans have been divided on the issue of immigration - republicans take a hard stance on immigration while President Obama is stopping the deportation of immigrants under thirty who had arrived in the US before the age of sixteen.   This makes republicans unpopular among Latino voters which leads to republicans losing a large (a rapidly expanding) demographic of the country. This is cause for concern for republicans and they are deep in thought on how to fix it after their recent loss of the white house. 

This is where Sean Hannity comes in, after stating on his radio show that 70% of the Latino vote went to democrats in this election he was brainstorming ways to sway the Latino vote for republicans and offered this solution, “We've gotta get rid of the immigration issue altogether. It's simple for me to fix it. I think you control the border first, you create a pathway for those people that are here, you don't say you gotta home. And that is a position that I've evolved on. Because you know what--it just--it's gotta be resolved. The majority of people here--if some people have criminal records you can send' em home--but if people are here, law-abiding, participating, four years, their kids are born here... first secure the border, pathway to citizenship... then it's done. But you can't let the problem continue. It's gotta stop.". You can listen to the radio excerpt here.

This statement led to a segment on Fox New that can be found here.  In the segment,  Fox news political analyst Juan Williams stated that in 2004, when George W.  Bush tried to reform immigration Sean Hannity was among the conservatives strongly against it and for this popular conservative figure to now want to take a second look could have an impact on conservative voters. Mary Katherine Ham, editor-at-large for hotair.com, strengthened Williams point by stating that Sean’s statements could indicate to conservatives that they should be more open about immigration. They brought up the point that Governor Romney’s stance on immigration was a turning point in the election. Marco Rubio had a plan for immigration similar to President Obama’s that Romney did not agree with and this hurt his campaign. Williams brought up the point that GOP members might be looking to politicians like Marco Rubio for advice on immigration policy and could even make Rubio a contender for president in 2016.

Is conservatives change on the issue of immigration also a sign of change among the Republican Party? Are politicians like Marco Rubio going to be a ‘new’ kind of republican for a new generation?  These questions do not have easy answers and will be debated again and again. I am glad that republicans are taking steps to try and reach out to people and will be interested in seeing where the debate on immigration leads the Republican Party.