Search results

IF THE ZOOLOGISTS ARE TO BE BELIEVED, THIS WORLD appears very different to members of different species of animals. Flowers conceal patterns and markings that are visible only to insects; dogs inhabit a world reeking with enticing scents; the bats' Lebenswelt echoes with highly significant squeaks. Something rather similar is true of political animals as well. The political world that faces the true-blue Tory has contours different from those that present themselves to the militant socialist, while what the liberal sees as the manifest data of politics is different again. Each of them, contemplating the common political world, has his attention caught and held by certain phenomena beside which others fade into insignificance. It is not surprising, therefore, that each has resort to a different key concept to sum up his experience. For the ideal-typical conservative, the basic datum of political experience is the totality of the historic political community, the nation. Like Rousseau's patriot, from the moment he opens his eyes he sees his country, and to the day of his death he never sees anything else. The socialist, by contrast, his attention held by a different range of experiences, wonders how anyone can fad to recognize the importance of social classes and the rift between them, while the liberal in his turn suspects the others of being deliberately obtuse when they refuse to see that distinct and different individuals are the basic components of political reality.

In a recent issue of NEWS, Professor G. Alan Tarr reminded us of how the feature film Nashville (1975) could be used as a springboard for thoughtful classroom discussion of American politics. While that film is ostensibly about country-music and its performers, Tarr makes a strong case that the Robert Altman film is "above all a commentary on political life." Nashville can be seen as an insight into a view of the voters and their indifference, indeed hostility to politics. The advance man of a presidential candidate is seeking to enlist big name performers for a rally but the candidate is never seen and the sound truck that advertises his campaign blares out the vague populist homilies which reminded many viewers of the then flowering Jimmy Carter speeches.

THIS STUDY WAS CONCERNED WITH THE FACIAL APPEARANCE OF CANDIDATES IN THE 1979 BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION. ONE OF ITS TWO AIMS WAS TO SEE IF THE FINDINGS OF BULL AND HAWKES (1982) WOULD BE REPLICATED IN MARGINAL CONSTITUENCIES. THIS PROVED TO BE THE CASE IN THAT THE FACES OF CANDIDATES THAT OBSERVERS (WHO DID NOT KNOW THEM) JUDGED TO BE SUPPORTERS OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY WERE RATED AS MORE INTELLIGENT, ATTRACTIVE, HONEST, AND OF HIGHER SOCIAL CLASS THAN WERE THE FACES OF CANDIDATES JUDGED TO BE FROM THE LABOUR PARTY. THE FINDINGS WERE UNINFLUENCED BY THE POLITICAL ALLEGIANCES OF THE OBSERVERS. THE SECOND AIM WAS TO SEE IF ANY OF THE RATINGS OF CANDIDATES' FACES WOULD RELATE TO THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF VOTES SUBSEQUENTLY CAST FOR THEM IN THE ELECTION. PERHAPS BECAUSE THE ELECTION RESULTS WERE FAR LESS MARGINAL THAN EXPERT OPINION HAD EXPECTED, IN THAT THERE WAS A VERY STRONG VOTE SWING TO THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, NONE OF THE RATINGS RELATED SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE NUMBERS OF VOTES CAST.

A suggestive analysis of the reasons for the apparent failure of US conservatives to effectively make their case through the national media, based on 1977/78 data. The ability of conservative politicians to generate public support for their policies will be crucial to their ability to turn their antiliberal 1980 election victory into a conservative national policy. It is probably inaccurate & certainly self-defeating to blame conservative media problems simply on a liberal bias in the media. An "us vs them" attitude must be avoided. Reporters are dependent on suppliers of stories. The biggest suppliers tend to be government bureaucrats, who try to justify their program of liberal big government. The media feed on crisis, making it easy for liberals to justify their programs by creating a crisis mentality about issues for which they want government action. Finally, an analysis of Senatorial staffing shows that liberals put more resources into media staffers & concentrate greater efforts on the national, as opposed to home state audience. 3 Tables. J. Woodward.