The Freak Show is alive, thundering through the airwaves, satellite signals, landlines, fiber optic cables and the ink laden pages of periodicals and daily reads and eventually into your home. It has a voice, the blended sounds of the media voices, the political pundits, the commentary laden public and the political candidates who maneuver in the Freak Show arena. I first learned of the term "Freak Show" after reading Mark Halperin's book, The Way To Win: Taking the White House in 2008. I gained a solid understanding of it's presence and control of politics today while studying in D.C. this past winter. Yet the Freak Show finds it's origins much earlier than my discovery a few months ago. It was born in the 1990’s during the Clinton years, its name an epiphany that sprung from a collection of screaming commentary over the Monica Lewinsky scandal that seemed to represent the time period.
The Freak Show is a powerful, influential and destructive environment that is the true enemy of ideas. It has a tendency to polarize and exert its destructive power through personal attacks with the help of corruptive incentives such as money and votes.
It has grown with the evolving technology of each generation and has matured through the destabilization of the genre of Old political media. As the 1990’s saw the decline of the Old Media (broadcast television newspapers and weekly periodicals) and the subsequent rise of the New Media (internet, talk radio and cable) the effects of the Freak Show can be seen through the polarization within the electorate and the ruthless attacks on political candidates and the division of voters into varying camps of unified resentment.
The Freak Show has many players that contribute to its turbulent environment, none more recognizable than Matt Drudge. It is a veritable sea that political candidates must navigate by learning its coveted trade secrets in order to survive any election and succeed at gaining the benefits that the Freak Show offers. In other words, the Freak Show only allows for two possible positions, a candidate both adheres to certain behavior and tactics and benefits from the Freak Show or they do not and they in turn become a victim of its wrath.
In light of the most recent campaigns for the presidential nominations for both parties in the United States it is clear that the Freak Show is healthy and growing, fed by interest groups, campaign finance laws that channel money, the reduction in the number of moderates in Congress and the slow death of any Old media attempts to actually cover real news, ergo Brittany Spears.
Unfortunately, the extreme behavior that is a trademark of the Freak Show will continue into the election of 2008. With this premise in mind, if the recent candidates wish to navigate the Freak Show Sea they must adhere to regimented candidate behavior. Surprisingly it appears as if a few of the candidates have taken note. In the begining, Barack Obama resisted the Freak Show rules and was punished heavily as he did not respond effectively to the attacks of Hillary Clinton, but that soon changed. Hillary on the other hand was well aware of the Freak Show and used it most effectively, hitting when it counted, holding back when it was prudent, and releasing a story in the form of a tear at the perfect moment in her campaign.
Although the practical answer to how a candidate must behave does depend on the political party they represent given a slight advantage to conservative candidates, it is universal that both sides must have a plan to navigate the Freak Show and use it to their advantage. Candidates must favor attack on opponents and endorse sensation rather than substance; they must also favor moral judgments from a personal derivative. They must show interest in serious policies, stay loyal to natural allies, put people first, respond quickly to any allegations with aggressive rebuttal and shift the focus back to key policy issues. Candidates must show they are tough and have the fortitude to lead. It seems that overall, candidates must remember that image is everything, protect it at all costs, do it with a moral and reserved tone from a standpoint that shifts focus always back to policy issues at hand and derives its structure from personal experience and long-standing principles. Whomever does this most effectively will surely win the nomination.
The Freak Show has proven to be durable if anything. It was born in the Clinton years, but persists through today and has affected the current democratic and republican campaign. The incentives in the media, the culture of political attack, the polarization of the political bases and the hunger for scandal all mark the effects of the Freak Show on the 2008 campaign. The platforms of the frontrunners are based specifically from the results of the success or failure of the early years of Freak Show politics. The New Media has gained a foothold in Freak Show politics and the campaigns of 2008 reflect this change. Many candidates have raised millions on the Internet; every candidate has a website, bloggs, and caters to the new technological advancements of the New Media while at the same time they do not dismiss the Old Media. It is evident that the Freak Show is alive and well in the 2008 campaign, and it seems that it is not going anywhere, for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment