Out of Order

A political science professor at Syracuse University examines how Americans elect presidents, analyzes how the growth of the media has undermined that process, and proposes changes in the campaign procedure to encourage stronger candidates

An arresting and perceptive critique of the media-centric process by which America selects its Presidents. Drawing on anecdotal as well as statistical evidence from races past, Patterson (Political Science/Syracuse University; coauthor, The Unseeing Eye, 1976) asserts that during the early 1970's the press gained, essentially by default, a dominant role in US presidential campaigns when the Democratic Party adopted rules designed to give voter preferences greater weight in nominations. Among other unintended consequences, Patterson notes, these changes led to the free-for-all marathons called primaries and all but eliminated the control of party professionals who'd previously chosen arguably qualified candidates. But for all its populist appeal, the revamped electoral system, Patterson charges, has proven dysfunctional on several crucial counts. To begin with, the author says, the fourth estate is ill-equipped to fill the void created by well-intentioned reformers; indeed, it has failed to serve as an interpretive broker, in large part because journalists tend to be skeptical, to focus on novelty (or gaffes), and to have a weakness for personality. Nor, Patterson observes, are news- gathering organizations accountable in the same way as officeholders or erstwhile kingmakers, meaning that the media version of events (delivered under deadline pressure) seldom meshes with the concerns of voters. While Patterson doesn't accuse today's reporters of partisan bias, he suggests that believing is seeing for many of them, citing their persistently negative coverage of an economy that was in fact recovering in 1992. To remedy the situation, he advocates restoring the institutional authority of the major parties (so that they can again serve as effective intermediaries) and shortening campaigns (to reduce the risk of accidental candidates practiced in ``the little arts of popularity''). Provocative prescriptions that draw useful distinctions between good politics and good government. (Charts and tabular material--not seen) -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Patterson (political science, Syracuse Univ.) makes his points early and often, contending that the system used to elect our presidents is "out of order" and clearly identifying the reasons: poor and "miscast" performances of the news media, the proliferation of presidential primaries across the United States, and the subsequent decline of the place of political parties in national elections. Patterson's remedy is to shorten the campaign by bunching up the primaries in a six-week period starting in June. He would also provide candidates with "adequate broadcast opportunities to present themselves and their policies as they wished them to be seen." There's nothing really new in any of this, although the author distills his views from nearly every modern source available. For large political science collections.
- Chet Hagan, Berks Cty. P.L. System, Pa.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Nearly everybody hates presidential campaigns, and half the voters skip the election. Political scientist Patterson cogently argues that this hostility and alienation come from depending on the news media for political information--something they don't provide well at all. Reporters hear the candidates' policy-crammed stump speeches sooner and far more often than voters do and get bored. To keep themselves interested, they treat the campaign as a game and their roles during it as play-by-play commentators on strategic developments. When those developments aren't forthcoming, they get out their spades and see what dirt about the candidates' private behavior there is to dig. Or, especially during the primaries, they make melodramatic mountains of significance out of molehills of evidence--for notorious instance, the way Iowa's primary-season-inaugurating caucus' highest vote-getter (not necessarily the "winner": Carter placed second to "undecided" in 1976) gets transformed into the front-runner. Patterson makes many other telling criticisms of the press as political educators, but he thinks a too-long campaign season, too many primaries, and moribund political parties are really to blame for the sorry state of our quadrennial ordeal. This is lucid, well-documented, absorbing public affairs stuff. Ray Olson