democracy beaten red and blue
by Matthew Kimball
Published: June 7, 2008
American political discourse has been watered down into a dichotomous phenomenon known as blue and red states. Binary language is all the rage in mass media coverage of electoral politics. This anomaly of contemporary government has contributed to a radically de-conceptualized notion of political bias in the United States. Red and blue translates to conservative and liberal. Red and blue can even translate to evil and good, depending on whom you’re speaking with. Whatever the true purpose of this color-coded mentality of democracy, its obvious that our lack of colors marginalizes the wealth of ideology we have.
To me, the communicative theory of binaries is all too apparent in this seemingly two-sided proverbial edifice of bias. Red and blue are at opposite ends of the spectrum, leaving little room for compromise. How is this beneficial for the American populace? Or more importantly, who benefits from it?
My theory for the birth of the red and blue phenomenon lies within mass media. It is no surprise that media outlets in the U.S. have become wastelands of administrative propaganda and conservative jargon, but I think they occasionally think with their own self-interests. It’s really quite simple. Red and blue is easy to digest for TV viewers. Of course, the Democratic and Republican Parties are large political entities, but there is also an affluence of other political entities, ranging from Libertarians and Greens to Socialists and Communists.
Many opponents of third-party votes tend to refer to the circumstances regarding the 2000 presidential election, where it has been observed that third-part presidential candidate Ralph Nader was the reason for Al Gore’s loss to George W. Bush. I encourage people to consider other obvious reasons to Gore’s loss.
According to cagreens.org, “a balanced analysis would also take into account the following: (1) voters who were disenfranchised; (2) voting systems and procedures that failed; (3) the party-line United States Supreme Court vote declaring George Bush the winner; and (4) Democrats who voted for Bush or not at all.” The site also points out that “the list of voters denied the right to vote was overwhelmingly democratic and half were minorities. Al Gore neither protested the disenfranchisement nor supported these voters’ lawsuits to regain their vote. It seems that Ralph Nader couldn’t have had much of an impact on the election results.
Voting for the “lesser of two evils” is not a vote in the interest of the American people, but a vote for the media and business institutions’ most acceptable version of presidential nominees. In addition to the communicative theory of binaries, we also have to consider the campaign contributions that massive corporate entities donate to specific candidates. Their contributions only amplify the amount of media exposure that an incumbent will receive. If you vote for Barak Obama, because he’s not nearly as bad as John McCain, you are simply encouraging the marginalization of American politics and contributing to the incestuous relationship between that and business.
Adherence to a symbiotic version of red and blue electoral politics is anything but a good example of democracy. People may say that these are simply the most popular parties, but it is important to remember how the media and business institutions of this country play into the game. Voters can’t receive the multiplicity of political bias because the media doesn’t adhere to fair and balanced doctrines and the business sectors only support candidates that will protect their maximization of profits. In a way, it seems as though Democrats and Republicans are playing this game together, to insure that the people will never elect someone who truly acts in their interests. A statement like that may seem outlandish, but how often in the history of presidential races has there been anything but Democrats or Republicans in the forefront? The more recent “color-coded” status of the parties only makes it easier for voters to lay submissive and admit defeat.
Voting outside of two colors and taking the time to research a candidate that truly supports your views without compromise is what being a democratic citizen is all about.
Administration at allthingscynthiamckinney.com articulates this best, when they describe in a recent post that “voting according to your principles, instead of limiting yourself to the establishment candidates or just ‘jumping on the Obama bandwagon’ in the hopes of having a “black” face in the White House, should be the primary objective to making sure one’s vote counts for something.”
While the website is inherently biased, as it endorses Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, their point is valid when it comes to “selling out” one’s beliefs and principles for the popular candidate that may make history. Voting requires a deep look into substance and content, not color codes and history-making faces. When you enter the voting booth this November, vote for the interests of you, your family and future generations, not what Wolf Blitzer or Sean Hannity tell you.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(11)
June 13th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Even if I voted for the Green Party candidate. My vote would spent on someone who in the end will do nothing for “my intrest.” The Green candidate will never be elected. I have to vote Democrat.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I agree with you. However, Sean Hannity represents fox news, one of few conservative based media. 80% of media is liberal so i take it this article is geared towards democrats. NBC shouldnt be allowed to be anymore. It is downright, in the tank, dishonest. It completely shut out hillary and gave obama all the praise. Thats a stain thats never go away…shame on them. The owners of NBC tell their reporters what to say, what to think, what to do. You will never find Fox News telling Sean Hannity what to say…