Globalization in the Political World

Globalization is a common word in today’s society. When I think of globalization, I tend to imagine all of the continents merging together to form one unified and informed community. Everyone from different communities would be able to come together to discuss important issues and be on the same knowledge level of current events. Sounds great, right? Well, thinks aren’t always as perfect as we may want them to be. On the political spectrum, globalization and politics do not always mash up so well. In a paper by Susan Berger, she writes “globalization undermines the national state…not only by shrinking the resources under national control for shaping economic and social outcomes, but also by reducing the government’s legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the public.” There have been many instances that could back up this point. For example, President George W. Bush claimed a “War on Terror” in September of 2001. He was hit hard with criticism. In 2005, Bush came out with a statement stating another reason why America needs to fight this war in Iraq. He claimed that it was needed to “protect the country’s vast oil fields.” The Democrats denounced his war style claiming that “’President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief.’” The American people were beginning to lose faith in their leadership and the authority of the government was being weakened.    

“Globalization is not just an economic phenomenon, but a political, cultural, military, and environmental one as well. What distinguishes globalization today is the speed and volume of cross-border contacts. The challenge U.S. policymakers face today is to recognize that fundamental change in world politics and to use America's unrivaled military, economic, and political power to fashion an international environment conducive to its interests and values.”

In my final blog post, I will be looking at the mass communication trends  of convergence, interactivity, and new definitions. 

Sources Used:

-The Globalization of Politics: American Foreign Policy for a New Century-Brookings Institute, Ivo H. Daalder

-"Globalization and Politics" by Suzanne Berger

-"Bush gives new reason for Iraq War"- Associated Press

Audiences? Trends? Voting? What is it all about?

Demassification. Concentration. Convergence. Interactivity. Globalization. What are these words you ask? Trends; trends found in mass communication. But what exactly do these words mean? Let’s start off by defining demassification since this will be a major part of my discussion. Demassification is defined as “media’s focus on narrower audience segments” (Vivian 11). The other trends listed above are pretty self-explanatory. In mass media, these types of trends are extremely important. They allow a company, or in my case, the political realm to become invested in their audience and gain the support needed to be sustained.

Let’s look at an example. In an article titled “The Uses of Polarization” by Thomas B. Edsall, he discusses that “a primary goal of a presidential campaign is to incrementally increase margins of support among volatile and persuadable demographic groups…" We can see that it is all about the audience and use of trends like demassification. In the online article he begins to explain the ethnic groups that the Republicans and Democrats tend to advertise towards.

In order for a candidate to gain the attention of the voter, several measures must be taken. There are about 3 that I can think of:

1)                   Pick a cause to support. 

2)                   Make said video or advertisement about the cause to draw in the voter.

3)                   Travel around the country trying to gain the respect and interest of as many

              voters as possible.

These steps seem appropriate, right? On YouTube you can find many

political ads that are linked to a certain "group" of voters. Let’s take a look at one: Can

you guess what "group" he is talking to?

      In an essay by David C. King, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, he outlines “Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter.” He describes the notions that politicians go through and makes known the difference between the stages of voting and the dedication of the politician to each voter in that stage. Does that make sense? Here is a better way to put it: “This paper tracks the relationship between a congressional district’s two-party competition and a member’s fidelity to voter interests.” According to the Clerk of the House of Representatives website, during the 2010 US Representatives Election the state of South Carolina had a total of 1,318,794 voters and the country total was 86,784,957 voters. No wonder trends such as demassification and concentration have to be used to gain the attention of such diverse and large audiences.

      In my next blog I will draw on the topic of globalization and interactivity in relation to the political spectrum. 

Sources Used:

The Media of Mass Communication by John Vivian

"Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter" by David C. King

"The Uses of Polarization" by Thomas B. Edsall

Statistics of the Congressional Election of November 2, 2010 by the Clerk of the House of Representatives: Karen L. Haas