As a reader of history, I am annoyed by specious claims of originality, discovery or significance – think "lies, damned lies and statistics." Such claims sometimes denote simply innocent cases of over-selling the "merchandise." Sometimes they dress up the fact that the same old story is being retold the same old way. Sometimes they warn the reader that objectivity and context have been compromised to an extent that render the work untrustworthy. And sometimes they serve as the apologia that justify monographs. (I have a special place in my hard and critical heart for monographs. As in-depth studies of some limited aspect of a larger story, they inherently ignore the context that would demonstrate that their subject matter was a mere footnote to history, but – and it is an important "but" – they are repositories of much interesting and often useful information that histories of broader scope usually overlook or ignore.)
The particular claim of significance I propose to address it the proposition that Abraham Lincoln's address to an audience at the Cooper Institute (known today as the Cooper Union) in New York City on February 27, 1860 brought him to national attention. I recently did a review of the number and character of newspaper mentions that Mr. Lincoln received during the several weeks immediately following his speech. The purpose, of course, was to see what they showed about the effect of the event on Mr. Lincoln's national prominence.
Before we delve into the media content, however, I will explore a couple of realities about politics and the media in 1860 and today in order to better understand the significance of that media content. In 1860, as today, politics was both a participatory sport and a major form of entertainment. I consider it likely that, both today as in 1860, the focus on the presidential election to be held four years hence begins as soon as the most recent election is over. This is not merely speculation about who the players might be but also, and more importantly, politicians taking preliminary steps and making overtures to put together the resources, allies and organization needed in the attempt to win their party's nomination.
We see this more clearly today than in 1860 because the rules of the political game of winning the nomination changed. In 1860 the political parties in the states held conventions to assess the local strength of individual candidates– both national figures and local "favorite sons" – and to select delegates to the national convention, and the delegates from the states met in the national convention to nominate the party's candidates for president and vice president. This left the process in the hands of the party insiders – although not necessarily under the control of the party leadership – and it excluded the general electorate altogether.
During the twentieth century various states instituted primary elections, but these generally were non-binding, and the ultimate nomination remained largely in the hands of the party insiders. This changed after the 1968 election – primaries and caucuses were made binding, and primaries and caucuses became more common. The cumulative effect was to diminish, but not eliminate, the importance of party insiders in determining the nominee and elevate the party electorate to primary importance.
I take it as an article of faith that, today and in the past, no one becomes the presidential nominee of a major political party by accident but rather as a result of hard work and preparation. The nomination of a "dark horse" candidate may come as a surprise to observers, but the winning candidate made his effort to achieve the nomination, as did all the other candidates, with the difference that the circumstances at the time favored the winner more than the others. All the hopefuls work hard, but chance can favor only one.
The upshot is that when, as in 1860, political insiders were of primary importance to winning the nomination, candidates courted the political insiders. Such communications were primarily private and thus received little inherent attention in the press except to the extent of gossip shared about who is "available" as a candidate and who is garnering support from the persons holding political power. Such communications, both privately and in the press, could be important in gathering influence and support beyond one's local power base. By contrast, when as today the party electorate is of primary importance, the candidates court the electorate, and a significant portion of the communications are conducted through the media – which means that the campaign coverage in the press for each presidential election extends to nearly four full years. Gaining the support of political insiders retains importance because their support can be important in reaching and persuading the electorate, but with the change in the rules of the game, the political insiders have ceased to be decision makers and have become more like gatekeepers.
Another important difference between 1860 and today is in the nature of the media. In 1860 print was mass media; newspapers generally served a local or statewide audience; editors determined what was news; and editors gathered news from local sources, from telegraphed reports and from other newspaper sent to them free through the mail. Calling the telegraph the "Victorian Internet" is a cute analogy of limited usefulness. The telegraph facilitated rapid communication of specific information only between individual senders and recipients – it did not enable individuals to broadcast information for general consumption; it did not enable individuals to extract information from a diversity of sources; and it did not permit an individual to address multitudes as though he was communicating with each person individually.
Such things are not only possible today but are employed by politicians and their courting of the electorate and employed by members of the electorate in seeking information about politics and other topics. Certain media outlets have a nationwide reach, and the local media outlets, both electronic and print, have interconnectivity sufficient to receive and communicate information almost immediately.
In 1860, when politicians went on the hustings their purpose was to address the voter directly in large numbers. Today when politician go on the hustings, they usually arrange events that provide television with favorable images for the evening news, although they know they can bypass the news media to some extent and reach the public through social media.
No comments:
Post a Comment