We have often commented on the singularly unmatched American genius for mass marketing. In many cases, its creation of a perceived need for, or of the utility of the item of the mass marketing has resulted in successful sales and millions of dollars for the commercial advertisers and the television medium itself. We have also, out of felt responsibility, castigated the practice where inappropriate or dangerous, as in the case of the indiscriminate and improper mass merchandising of medicine to the general public; the latter concern based upon the empirical possibility of nuanced results in the case of unknown and untested users.
We are presently concerned with the significance and the impact of the reported expenditure of untold millions of dollars on the mass merchandising of political candidates for elective office notably, the Presidency, in the context of its felt impact upon the dynamics of democracy, itself and the nature of its implicit perception of the voting public.
In a polity such as ours, in which the official governing theme is “by and for the People,” the implied dynamic corollary is the principle that government policy and action are to be guided and expressed by the determinate, wishes of the voters,’ themselves, and not by the effect of persuasive influence of others; often, efforts of wealthy special interests. In our view, it would appear antithetical to the institution of the individual voting franchise, to tactically induce the voter to cast his ballot otherwise than consistent with his personalized perceptions and beliefs. Fortunately, the Presidential voter is limited to only two choices, nevertheless, the practice of massive, well-paid, persuasive sales programs seems inconsistent with free-will democracy.
This, of course, is to be distinguished from the debates and public appearances of the competing candidates and their partisan supporters., desirous of acquainting the prospective voter with t their posture on issues in the elective competition. By contrast, programs of mass media merchandising candidates by definitional and dynamic contrast. is one-sided and mono-focused upon the undertaken and well-paid mission to obtain votes for their sponsor. We see such media-sales companies that are evaluated by the total number of persuaded voters and irrespective of the substantive results of the election, as an interference with, or an intentional distortion of democracy.
It is also possible to see the mass sales promotion of candidates as a demonstrated and principled expression of disrespect for the determinative capability or the lack of established principle on the part of the citizen television viewer. The colossal presumption that the traditional voter is shallow enough to be persuaded by fancy light shows, paid “celebrities” and entertaining lights and music, is derogative and “in-your-face insulting.
Notably, the mass merchandising of our Presidential elections has been empirically shown to be, disappointingly, effective and deserving of no special tribute to the disappointing limitations of our populist-entertainment-seeking society.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 