Roderick Hart may be among the few Americans who believe that what
politicians say in a campaign actually matters. He also believes that
campaigns work. Even as television coverage, political ads, and opinion
polls turn elections into field days for marketing professionals, Hart
argues convincingly that campaigns do play their role in sustaining
democracy, mainly because they bring about a dialogue among candidates,
the press, and the people. Here he takes a close look at the exchange of
ideas through language used in campaign speeches, political advertising,
public debates, print and broadcast news, and a wide variety of letters
to the editor. In each case, the participants choose their words
differently, and this, according to Hart, can be a frustrating challenge
to anyone trying to make sense of the issues. Yet he finds that the
process is good for Americans: campaigns inform us about issues,
sensitize us to the concerns of others, and either encourage us to vote
or at least heighten our sense of the political world.
Hart comes to his conclusions by using DICTION, a computer program that
has enabled him to unearth substantive data, such as the many subtle
shifts found in political language, over the past fifty years. This
approach yields a rich variety of insights, including empirically based
explanations of impressions created by political candidates. For
example, in 1996 Bill Clinton successfully connected with voters by
using many human-interest words--"you," "us," "people," "family." Bob
Dole, however, alienated the public and even undermined his own claims
of optimism by using an abundance of denial words--"can't," "shouldn't,"
"couldn't." Hart also tracks issue buzzwords such as "Medicare" to show
how candidates and voters define and readjust their positions throughout
the campaign dialogue.
In the midst of today's increased media hype surrounding elections,
Americans and the candidates they elect do seem to be listening to each
other--as much as they did in years gone by. Hart's wide-ranging,
objective investigation upends many of our stereotypes about political
life and presents a new, more bracing, understanding of contemporary
electoral behavior.
