Quote:
Originally Posted by nittanyalum
I don't contest the underlying opinion that it would be preferable for people to get information from nonpartisan and more academic sources, but there's also a reality to running and winning elections, unfortunately. Candidates are like products these days so they employ good marketing & advertising strategies in a similar way. Our celebrity-obsessed culture responds positively to celebrity endorsement, so campaigns and lobbyists employ them as effectively as they can. For every Chuck Norris there's a George Clooney, for every Charlton Heston (RIP) there's a Susan Sarandon.
|
Oh, I totally agree - I'm not disputing the
utility of the celebrity endorsement, I'm saying that often the celebrity statement is ill-informed at best and intentionally misleading at worse (see: Baldwin, Alex).
Put another way: utility doesn't make right, and there's nothing wrong with an informed individual being upset that an ill-informed individual gets increased say that they may or may not deserve, depending on your world view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittanyalum
Regarding the reelection issue, that points to the very real truth that all politics are local and constituents remain satisfied with representatives that deliver. Having a celebrity as your representative doesn't hurt when you're trying to bring attention to an issue affecting your area or support for a bill that benefits your district. Democracy in action.
|
Again, I agree with the concept, but I would posit that an overwhelming number of voters don't have any clue about their representative's actions, efficacy or "deliverables."
Actually, this kind of feels like selection bias - because you understand these things, you're assuming others do too. However, I think name recognition is likely only important in and of itself, and most people don't ever think "Hey, John Elway would bring increased attention to my shoddy highway funding!"