Analysis 1

Let’s look at a fictional representation of our political system: “Game Change.” “Game Change,” the HBO film, is based off of a 2010 book documenting Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign written by journalists John Heilemenn and Mark Halperin. The film begins just after the Republican Primary when Senator McCain was searching for a vice-presidential candidate for his ticket. It is largely a critique of the factors impacting presidential elections in the modern day. Nowadays it is more concerned with social media efforts and negative campaigning than the issues at hand and the responsibilities of public office.

This film caters to two audiences within the American public—the uninformed voters and the political thinkers. It is common knowledge that Senator McCain ran for president in 2008 against President Barack Obama unsuccessfully with Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-president. Pop culture generally associates this particular election with Tina Fey’s “Saturday Night Live” spoofs. Therefore the uniformed masses have come to understand this political campaign through the lens of satire and parody. I believe the film was an educational tool for the uniformed voter, introducing them to the sphere of American politics detailing the intricacies of a democratic campaign coming down to debate and national interview preparations. The most faithful viewers will be those personally intrigued by political-based movies and those who actually read the book in the first place. The movie aimed to serve as a depiction of politics in an era of the twenty-four hour news cycle and the double-edged sword that is negative campaigning.

The film was shown on HBO in February of 2012 just before the 2012 presidential campaign was in heat. Thus it served as both a critique of election season and insight into the current political atmosphere using the events of the past. Without directly impacting the Obama-Romney race, “Game Change” was an advertisement for the American political system. It was a different medium to talk about the near-past, events, such as the war with Iraq, that were not highlighted in the 2012 presidential campaigns. Events that still affect the country but are not as pressing as the fiscal cliff, healthcare or foreign policy in regards to Iran’s nuclear weapons development. In addition, it can be seen as a cautionary tale… Although this is based off real events, it is impossible to depict the absolute truth behind the election because everybody has a different version.

The film focused on Governor Palin’s campaign trail which discussed a few hot topics of the time: the war with Iraq, children with disabilities and energy independence. Today, these are two issues not discussed in depth, instead the fiscal cliff and political polarization of congress inundates the front pages of newspapers across the country. The issue of disabilities personally affected Governor Palin as her youngest child was born with Down syndrome. At the surface the film seems to be a springboard for discussion about these issues, which are not in the spotlight nowadays, but it largely serves the purpose of judging the election system. Governor Palin became such a celebrity during the campaign that “Saturday Night Live” sketches were covering her mistakes and her past indiscretions.

There is one line that highlights the purpose of the film, a critique of modern political campaigns. Rick Davis, the national campaign manager for Senator McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, says, “Listen, I too wish that the American people would choose the future Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, but unfortunately, that’s not the way it works anymore. Now it takes movie-star charisma to get elected President, and Obama and Palin, that’s what they are – they’re stars.” The quote illustrates a stark contrast between the rules governing presidential campaigns in the distant past and the ones that we see now. Celebrity status garners national exposure as opposed to their political stances within the framework of their respective political party. In addition, it sheds light on society. It demonstrates a gap in the average voter. The current American voter may be more informed on the candidate’s past ventures as opposed to their stances on immigration and taxation. This piece of social rhetor is an example of societal analysis in the realm of political elections. It draws attention to what consumes the media during presidential elections, an important influence on a society of voters and the institution of the United States’ democracy.

The question stands… How are we truly electing our Presidents? Is it based on a system of merit and competence or celebrity status and negative campaign competition?