The Shifting of Political Sands

This is a trend piece I wrote for my JMC 2033 class this past semester. Sorry about the poor formating, that's Word for you.

On August 9, 1974 a well-dressed man ascended the steps of a helicopter emblazoned with the flag of the United States of America. He turned, smiled, and stretched out his arms to either side of him, two fingers extended on each hand.

Richard M. Nixon then turned around and boarded the helicopter and left the White House. Nixon’s term was marred with success and scandal alike. He received one of the most resounding reelections in presidential history, and was the first U.S. President to resign from office.

Nixon was at the nation’s helm during the closing stanzas of the Vietnam quagmire. Today, the country is in a similar situation; as the war in Iraq drags on, the public’s tolerance for the current administration is spreading thin.

The political world has undergone some enormous changes since Nixon was elected the first time.

Larisa Yun, a graduate teaching associate, working toward her doctorate in political science at the University of Oklahoma, said perhaps the most significant change is the overall decrease in trust the public expresses for the government.

“Generally, we’ve seen a decline [in trust] since the 1970s with Nixon and the Vietnam War,” Yun said. “But trust increased after September 11, because of the ‘rally around the flag effect.’ But now, it is on the decline again since we have not found weapons in Iraq.”

Samantha Bershears, an OU political science senior, said she agrees. “The distrust of the American public toward the government started around Watergate.”

Episodes like Watergate, the Whitewater real estate scandal, Vietnam and more recently the Abramoff and Libby scandals have had a profound impact on the nation’s perception of the federal government. Abramoff, a Congressional lobbyist, pled guilty in 2006 to charges of fraud and conspiracy. Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, is currently awaiting sentencing after being convicted of obstruction of justice charges. With each new scandal that unfolds, the public’s distrust increases a little bit.

Visiting assistant professor of political science, Dr. Shad Satterthwaite, said this trend of public dissatisfaction with government proceedings manifests itself in voter participation.

“There has been a decline in voter participation since 1960, it hit a low in 1996, when it dipped below 50 percent,” Satterthwaite said. “And then it went above 50 percent again in 2000.”

According to statistics at infoplease.com, in 1960, 63.1 percent of eligible voters turned out for the general elections. Since then numbers have steadily decreased, bottoming out at 49.1 percent in 1996. However numbers have increased slightly since the ’96 election, with 55.3 percent of eligible voters showing up in 2004. Numbers in midterm elections are staggeringly low, striking bedrock in the mid 30th percentile.

“It went up a little bit from 1996 to 2000,” Satterthwaite said. “When you have no incumbent you have a close race and there is an increase in interest.”

Satterthwaite said he attributes voter apathy to a lack of political and social motivation. “In 1996 the economy was starting to go pretty well, there was no major problem, which is why we see low turnout.”

The theory also works to explain student voting patterns, Satterthwaite said. “Students do not care because there is nothing impacting them right now. Like in the 1960s, for example, you had the draft and students protested, because it meant something to them.”

Indeed, the 1960s saw unprecedented student political involvement and massive campus protests over the Vietnam War. Iraq maybe today’s Vietnam but one would not assume this to be the case if they looked at an average campus.

Bershears echoed this mentality. “If it does not affect them, they are not going to care about it,” Bershears said. “People will not see past the tips of their noses.”

Satterthwaite said public apathy is also in large part due to increased media activity since the ‘60s and ‘70s. “The media really are to blame, their role is to inform the people,” Satterthwaite said. Simply opening the morning paper or watching the evening news confirms this statement.

All of the news coming out of Washington seems to be bad, Satterthwaite said, “It is easier to do a story on conflict.” He said the media puts greater emphasis on stories where the parties are at odds, than when they are working together.

“I think that it has to do with what sells,” Bershears said. “People want to hear about scandal and competition, not bipartisanship.”

Yun said she also blames the media for recent political changes. “It is easier than ever to avoid information,” Yun said. Although the news media makes information more readily available, the rest of the media offers itself as a distraction from world events, Yun said.

“These distractions lead to less political knowledge and thus less political interest.”

For example, many Americans do not know whom Jack Abramoff or “Scooter” Libby are; however, many of those same people know of Sanjaya Malakar and his recent departure from American Idol.

This is not the only impact of the media on the political field, Yun said. She said she believes the media is changing the way the American political machine is run. “I think you see a move from party centered politics to candidate centered politics because of television and the internet,” Yun said. “This is because you no longer need to be connected to a party to get your name out there.”

Mike Jones, another graduate teaching assistant at OU, claims this is the reason for the recent successes of third party candidates. “Just look at Ross Perot, in 1992 he received almost 20 percent of the popular vote,” Jones said. Yun and Jones both agreed all a person needs to run for office is money.

Satterthwaite said he sees a problem in that. “I think the two party system is plenty entangled and it would be hard for a third party to get into office,” he said. “Because of the way the system is set up now I do not see it as being in danger, but I do see a lot of dissatisfaction in politics.”

A lot of that dissatisfaction is arising from issues of money and campaigning. Politicians are already beginning to campaign for the 2008 presidential race in early 2007. “A lot of the early campaigning is just raising money,” Yun said. “If you are interested you have to keep up. If one person starts you have to do the same thing.”

By the time Election Day rolls around many citizens are tired of the endless political banter that consumes the news media in the weeks and months prior to an election.

Money is not the only thing that keeps third parties out of office, however. “Third party voters are very specific, often voting on single issues,” Jones said. He went on to say the mainstream parties often incorporate successful third party issues.

“In the 1990s politics started becoming more partisan,” Satterthwaite said. However, he points out that most party members are not extremists but rather closer to political moderates.

“Party identification has decreased,” Yun agreed.

Jones said he is skeptical of the people who call themselves moderates. “Either moderates are incredibly informed or incredibly ignorant,” he said. “Most people who claim to be moderate actually identify with one of the parties more than they realize.”

One example of a growing moderate climate exists in the state of Oklahoma. Oklahomans tend to vote Republican in national elections. In 2004 George W. Bush received the state’s Electoral College votes, gaining 66 percent of the popular vote in the state, according The Washington Post’s website. The only Democrat voted into office in 2004 was Dan Boren, son of former Senator David Boren.

However, the CBS News website reports a 66 percent majority voted for Governor Brad Henry, a Democrat, in the 2006 midterm elections.

“There are more registered Democrats in Oklahoma,” Satterthwaite explained, “however, there was a poll that showed more Oklahomans relate with Republicans than Democrats.”

Jones and Satterthwaite do not see eye-to-eye on this subject. Different populations vote in local elections than in national elections, Jones said, therefore the results will be different. Still, the CBS website shows that every other seat open for election in 2006—again except for Dan Boren’s—was won by Republicans.

This moderate climate that is apparently developing in Oklahoma is not unique, but part of a greater trend, encompassing the nation. It is but one face of how the world of American politics has changed since Nixon first walked the White House lawn.

-Caleb Williams