|
|
|
|
|
IU professor questions campaigns' abilities to address issues
Oct. 19, 2000
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Millions of Americans tuned in to watch the presidential debates. One viewer, an Indiana University professor who studies the rhetoric used in political campaigns, questions the value of the debates and whether they allow for genuine discussion of issues facing our society.
James Andrews, professor of communication and culture, has studied presidential rhetoric from the 19th century and draws parallels between the ornate grammar used by today's politicians and that of their predecessors. He believes that serious campaign discussion of issues doesn't happen today, but it never has.
"The idea of presidential speaking and debates is a very modern one," Andrews said. "William Jennings Bryan (who ran losing campaigns for president in 1896 and 1900) was the first to do a speaking tour, and he was criticized for breaching etiquette."
According to Andrews, when candidates such as Jennings, William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt had opportunities, they often chose to give a 40-minute speech rather than provide two-to-three-minute responses. "They had a lot more time to develop ideas. However, they still engaged in personality battles and strayed from the issues," he said.
Andrews believes that candidates today don't talk about the issues because they spend so much time focusing on their opponents.
"It is distressing how little we actually discuss real issues," he said. "However, it is not like we have departed from some Golden Age, when we used to do that all the time. We actually have a long history of image candidates, personal attacks and negative campaigning."
Andrews is the author or co-author of seven books, including The Practice of Rhetorical Criticism, American Voices and Contemporary American Voices. He is presently editing the first volume of The Rhetorical History of the United States, to be published by Michigan State University Press.
He said he doesn't expect to see any substantive changes during the remainder of the current presidential campaign. The major party candidates will be trying very hard to stay on message while campaigning, and voters should watch for how often candidates are willing to go on the attack.
"The conventional wisdom is that when you are this close, this late in the game, you have to make a decision about how much you are going to attack," Andrews said, adding that Vice President Al Gore likely will attack Gov. George W. Bush's record in Texas, and that Bush likely will attack Gore's character.
"Both are trying very hard to think of what they can do to antagonize or bring out the worst in the other," he said.
While there are real differences in their philosophies, voters don't always see them. Instead, voters usually look for a flaw to help them eliminate one of the candidates, Andrews said. "People are thinking, 'Is the mask going to slip? Am I going to get a glimpse of the real person behind all of this scripted stuff?'"
At the same time, he believes the candidates will be very concerned about what the voters see as negative. "People say they don't like negative advertising, and yet the evidence seems to say that negative advertising works," he said. "So there is a terrible contradiction."
Andrews believes the recent debates were very much determined by the setting in which they occurred, with the media, political polls and campaigns all playing a large part. For example, the criteria by which winners and losers are measured have changed.
"We now have overnight polls, and you can read three editorials about the debates in the New York Times and see a variety of opinions," Andrews said. "Back in the 19th century, they were much more blatant. Most newspapers were absolutely partisan in supporting one candidate or the other."
Andrews can be reached at 812-855-0246 or andrewsj@indiana.edu