The new face of politics

I was born in the 1950's, at what was the height of the Cold War, and grew up watching and listening to leaders, (I hadn't yet made the distinction between that term and 'politicians') on both sides of the political aisle, and it seems to have formed in me, (and I think many others) a subconcious image of what a political leader is. Picture Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had the credentials of leadership not only from Washington, but from his service in the second world war. Ditto John Kennedy, but to a lesser extent on both fronts, and Martin Luther King, Jr., who was credentialed in Birmingham, AL and on the mall in Washington, DC. What followed those men, where the next wave, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, who had all served in the armed forces in some capacity, (some more than others), whose impression did not quite live up to what I had come to expect to be the norm. It did not help one bit that the tenures of these men was marked with some deep wounds on the national psyche, (Vietnam, Watergate, Iran).
What followed that era was something entirely new, leaders who were credentialed in arena's not yet marred by the ravages of scandal and deceit.

We entered the era of Ronald Reagan, the hero of "Hellcats of the Navy", "Knute Rockne, All American" and "Death Valley Days", a face with a cultivated image that may, or may not, reflect the reality behind the personna. Reagan's ascension to power as Governor of California was followed by the elevation to various offices of Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, John Warner, (Mr. Elizabeth Taylor), Fred Thompson, Jesse Ventura and others. Entertainers all, (well, most), they were able to capitalize on name recognition, and the subconcious image that the media consuming public had of them. As of yesterday, Al Franken enetered the race for a Senate seat from Minnesota. In an odd variation of the theme, former VP Al Gore has converted himself from a politician to a movie star of sorts. That move, planned or not, may keep him viable for future candidacies.

I will not praise or criticize any of these folks in this particular post. I just want to ask why?

What is it about the media that we give it so much influence? In particular, I am citing television for its ubiquitous presence in our lives, but it also extends to film and radio, and, most likely, print, (whose influence is moderated by the time and energy required to absorb the content from that media). It is a fact of life, but is it a good thing?

I don't know the answer to that, but it is something worth thinking about as we approach the next election. As a side issue, it will be interesting to see how some of the candidates use TV to accentuate or moderate impressions that already exist. This is nothing new, but we have before us a few candidates with what used to be called baggage to overcome, and a few who are nothing more than one liners in the national mindset.

Stay focused. Make some popcorn and watch carefully. The digital editor is not always quicker then the eye.