The Personality Traits and Private Lives of Politicians Should Have no Bearing in Democratic Political Discourse

I have not had much interest in politics until recently. Before last year, I did not care for anything related to politics; I thought that it was all boring and had little to no affect on me on a personal level. I am more interested in politics nowadays. I know better now that it does affect me and I should care about it. I had learned about the concepts of political socialization, party identification, political tolerance, political trust, political efficacy in government class and how they affect my political beliefs. My personal political belief has been shaped into what it is today and is still being shaped because of those six concepts.

In the United States, television has been influential in presidential elections since the 1960’s. Television has a way of “turning away from policy sphere,” it judges candidates based on their appearances, not their message. Television has shifted the key point of presidential debates: from pursuing issue to pursuing image. Therefore, television is misleading, having a negative impact on presidential elections.

According to communications.tufts.edu, “Social Media refers to the means of interaction in which they create, share, and/or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks.” Early major Social Media platforms include MySpace and Facebook, but have grown to include apps and websites like Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter. All of these can be a “scrapbook” of sorts, a way of storing photos, videos and stories that will stay on the internet one way or another. In fact, even if a user deletes their account, it is very possible to still access what they shared. However, Social Media isn’t just used by the common folk, it is also used by the leaders of our world. For example, many current news headlines like to focus on Donald Trump’s use of Twitter, but it is a great way to easily communicate with his country. For example, at 6:33 p.m. on March 22nd, he tweeted “Spoke to U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May today to offer condolences on the terrorist attack in London. She is strong and doing very well.” Although Trump tweeted this to show that the UK Prime Minister is feeling okay after the attack at her country, it also shows the diplomatic connection between the two. Trump would not tweet a message like this about Kim Jong-un, because the US and North Korea don’t have a good diplomatic connection. Donald Trump also uses Twitter to update what he is working on. Examples include: “Big day for healthcare. Working hard!”, “Honored to sign S442 today...” “My representatives had a great meeting w/ Hispanic Chamber of Commerce at the WH today. Look forward to tremendous growth & future mtgs!” Donald Trump isn’t the only world leader to use Twitter. Other current and past users include Pope Francis, Queen Elizabeth and the Royal Family, Cristina Kirchner and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. It is difficult to ignore the growth of Social Media for not just common people, but for world leaders.

How presidential candidates present themselves in the media can be proven to impact election results dramatically. Political figure using social media did not start to become more common until after the 2008 election because Twitter and Facebook were just recently created, but by looking at data from the past two elections it shows that the news presidential candidates put on their social media can correlate with how people will decide to vote. After researching what topics political candidates post and how they present themselves in the media with election results it can be established that a candidate’s presence in social media can have an impact on how people might vote in an election. “By 2008 candidate websites were standard and campaigns

To begin, television creates distorted images of politicians. Broadcasts and shows on television can easily be manipulated, whether intended or not, giving the audience a misleading and false impressions of candidates. Theodore H. White, a subscriber of John F. Kennedy in the debate, The Making of the President 1960, even agreed that “Kennedy’s victory was [solely] a triumph of image over content”(Menand). He further states, “Kennedy benefited because his image on television was “crisp”,[whereas] Nixon’s light-coloured suit, wrong makeup, and bad posture was “fuzzed””(Menand). A person’s character and quality cannot be determined by their outer appearances on screen, however, television inevitably creates

Candidates should not be allowed “victory” based on entertainment quality for how are they to lead a nation, when they lack the trait of intellect. Others counter argue that television has given audience a new experience, the chance to feel connected to candidates on a personal level. In the late 1940’s it was believed that television was to be a “new era… in public communication” (source a). It was said “Not even the sky is the limit.” (source a) for “Television… provides a new, direct, and sensitive link between Washington and the people” (source a). The media might not show the whole picture and might also favor entertainment it was still seen as a step forward in public communication for television did allow audience to connect with candidates, for now they could see the candidates

Social media is allowing government communicators to connect and converse with constituents in ways not possible through traditional communications. In a study that included a digital ethnography and in-depth interviews with federal social media managers, one interviewee noted that more than half of their interactions on Twitter were responding to citizens (Mergel, 2016).

Identifying that social media was going to help him the most, Obama did many things to ensure he was connecting with voters. Not only with those who supported him completely, but also those who were also seeking for reasons to support him. “For example, on Facebook Obama counted over two million supporters…and 844,927 friends on MySpace (Kaid, 2009, p. 419). However, this was not the only site that he was a part of. Obama used Twitter as well to keep supporters and voters up to date along with creating “a social networking Web site that allowed supporters and potential voters to participate in creating content…[and] helped audience members feel like they produced change…” (Johnson, 2012, p. 58). This type of connection is exactly where the younger new voters were. Some would only be reached in this type of capacity. With the use of Twitter by Obama it allowed him “the freedom to deliver crafted, unfiltered, messages to voters and nonvoters alike. They allowed Obama the ability to shape an image of being a young, modern leader in touch with the future of the nation” (Hendricks & Denton, 2010,

Throughout history, media has played a significant role in how an individual obtains power. The Presidential campaign of Donald Trump utilized specific aspects of modern-day media to ultimately win the election. Although the medium upon which people communicate has changed over time, the message itself has stayed relatively the same. The world’s latest medium however can be seen in the exponential growth of social media as well as news media outlets. Through the use of social media, Trump captured the world’s attention and garnered international headlines.

People have relied on many forms of media when it comes to politics. This year’s election was a step in a different direction. The path that this election was carving was one that was beginning to be heavily traveled. It was the road that many people gained their information about the election their reliance of social media. With the candidates of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party and Donald Trump for the Republican Party, many people were uncertain who they were going to vote for as their next Commander in Chief. Some of the people who were uncertain who would get their vote knew about the ethical problems that Hillary had and the inexperience in the realm of government for Trump.

One of the dynamic and ongoing parts that occur in the United States is people's ability to participate in public affairs through political parties. It is convenient that there are more than two political groups because there are times when people disagree with the two major parties' positions but still want to get involved. Having the flexibility to choose or change what party people want to affiliate with helps them deal with their personal interests and changes throughout the course of their lives. This shows that people's personal choices matter and that the government is not all about leadership and power. Moreover, being in a party affiliation gives people a sense of engagement and involvement with the government which can result in mutual benefits.

Have you ever watched a television ad for an election, especially one that speaks negatively of a political opponent? Most likely, you were unable to escape the onslaught of these ads, as they play seemingly non-stop during election season. These ads are an attempt to frame your way of thinking, that by showing you a politicians flaws, you can see the opposing politician in a better light. A study was conducted, and it showed that while presidential campaigns are being held, the public’s view on their policy doesn’t sway too much. Instead, these campaigns are ways for politicians to persuade how to public feels about them (Markus, 1982). To be more precise, the main two factors that people look for in politicians are competence and integrity (Markus, 1982). This is why you see so many ads preaching how honest or dishonest politicians are, or ads that point out mistakes that were made years

United States President Barack Obama has almost 5 million Instagram followers. Russian President Vladimir Putin has more than 1.5 million likes on his Facebook page. British Prime Minister David Cameron has a Twitter following of over 1 million. With public figures able to garner enormous audiences like these, I would argue that it is time to move past the question of “if” nations and the people that represent them should use social media. Instead, empirical studies should focus on “how” nations can best use social media to build relationships with foreign publics.

There are many facets in life that can shape the uniqueness of an individual. One of those characteristics is an individual’s views on contemporary issues which can affect matters on a community, state, or even federal level. In regards to my stance on politics, I believe I have developed myself into a political person by being engaged with the local and federal legislation, because decisions made here can and do affect us—if not, at least someone close to us. When an election occurs—local, state, or federal—I can easily express my views by simply voting for the candidate who best reflects my beliefs. Then, depending on the winner, legislation can potentially be passed, favoring my views or my opponent’s.

One-way politicians can use their social media platforms to influence their voters is to constantly be engaging with their audience. Today, there are a lot of ways to get news feed from all over the world. A lot of people think that the only people that are on Facebook are younger