One of the major points you should have gotten out of the reading and the blog comments is that the question of how judges are chosen in South Carolina remains controversial. We are one of two states that allows the legislature to choose judges with little to no check of balance on their choice (the other is Virginia). While reforms have improved the process in recent years to account for the quality of judges and to prevent legislators from merely electing fellow legislators to the courts (as the practice was a few years ago), the practice remains controversial. The plan that most political scientists consider ideal is to have the governor appoint judges from a list of people deemed to be highly qualified created by a panel of neutral nominators (usually composed of other judges, attorneys and some lay people). Then a year later the people get to vote on whether or not to keep the judge in office. Though only about 1% ever get rejected, it does give people power to rid themselves of judges they feel are acting poorly and it does not burden voters to judge professional qualifications and minimizes political pressures. This is called the Missouri Plan and is used by about 14 states in some modified form. About another half dozen states use something like the national model with the governor making an appointment and then having the legislature confirm that appointment.
South Carolina’s system, even with its improvements, is still highly political in that interest groups and politics place a lot of pressure on legislative judicial elections. Just a month or so ago we elected a new member of the state Supreme Court after one member retired. What I want you to do is look at a tv ad that was run – very carefully – and comment on it – what was the ad trying to do? Was the ad fair? How effective do you think it was? What does it tell you about politics in South Carolina? Here is the link to the ad on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T463tgvvrdg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Well the ad was obviously trying to hurt the person nominated for South Carolina’s Supreme Court. The ad used controversial issues; such as, banning prayer in schools, legalizing gay marriage, and cutting public funding for abortion to make Don Beatty sound like a bad person. Since South Carolina is a Republican state, the ad is trying to point out that Don Beatty does not support the “values” South Carolina stands for primarily because he is a Democrat. The ad blames democrats for legalizing gay marriage and other negative thing our government has done. As for commenting on if the ad was fair or not, I believe that it is just politics. During every election, we see these ads on television and they make us believe what they want us to believe. It is up to the person who watches these ads to make their own decision. If you really take the time to research the person in question then you would realize that these ads are not always accurate. However, most Americans do not take the time to actually look at politicians and what they stand for, so they believe these ads. This ad tells you that South Carolina has no shame in blaming certain political parties for negative outcomes. Even more, South Carolina relies heavily on targeting people for their “values” and the “South Carolinian way.”
Julie Kate Keeney
The ad is opposing Don Beatty who was running for the South Carolina Supreme Court. The ad points out that Beatty is liberal judge and liberal judges support gay marriage, support banning prayer in schools, and restricting property rights. It says that Beatty “opposed a measure to prevent public funding of abortion,” voted against gun rights, and was against tax cuts. Beatty is called an “ultra liberal democrat partisan.” The ad was obviously trying to discourage people from voting for Beatty by pointing out all the bad things that he did. I think that the ad was fair. The whole idea of political campaigns is to support your candidate and to make the other candidates look bad. Ads do not always present the viewer with all the information; they pick and choose what to put on television. They pick what will make the competition look worse to the voters. The ad supports my opinion that politicians are ruthless during campaign times. I don’t know how effective it would be. I think that mentioning touchy subjects like abortion and gay marriage make the voters who don’t support that immediately oppose the candidate. Overall, the ad was no worse than any of the others that are all over T.V. during campaign times.
-Sarah Luckey
The ad was trying to bash Don Beatty by using his platform against him. They used his use for funds to finace abortion, banning prayer in schools, and gay marriage to make the candidate sound like a bad person. They try to say that Beatty does not stand behind the simple values that South Carolina is built upon. Even though he is a Democrat they try to blame the Democratic party for legalizing gay marriage and abortion as a means of stopping his campaign. In comparison to some of the ads i have seen in the past this is nothing new and this is one of those things that seem to happen whenever you are in the political limelight. I would not exactly say that the ad was inccorect but I would say that ther tactics are immoral.
The ad was basically a bashing to Don Beatty. The ad used topics such as legalizing gay mariages, banning prayer in schools,abortion, and cutting funding in schools. The ad was simply trying to say that Don Beatty does not support the same things values South Carolians have and with him being a Democrate, that did not either. As far ad being accrater well who knows and the adudience they target do not take the time to research the fact so it really does not matter because a the point they are trying to get across has already succeeded by that time. As far as the ad being fair I cannot really say if it is fair or no I really just think its politics.
Cequita D Edmond
Well, I don’t think this ad is any worse than any other political ad that I have seen.
My mother-in-law is a State Court in Fulton County and she was appointed by Gov. Roy Barnes and she does go up for re-election. Judges are elected officials, however the term elected is subjective. In my mother-in-laws case she was first appointed on the basis that Gov. Barnes thought she was qualified to fill the seat. Gov. Barnes is also an elected official which means that the people put their trust in him to what is right. I don’t think SC should be any different. I would have like to have seen some diversity in SC’s Supreme Court. I think they are lagging behind. Georgia has grown in leaps and bounds as far as diversity. Georgia also has a black Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, who by the way is a personal friend of the family and my mentor. We know that Republicans are in control for the most part in SC. Republicans are anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. They highlighted they values they hold and focused on the fact that he does not view them the same way they do, if you are not with us then you are against us kinda thing. Was it fair, well it was politics and politicians don’t fight fairly. I think it sad that b/c he views are different from that of the people in SC on some “religious” when there is supposed to a separation of church and state. The Republicans played the right card, I hate to say it but, it is what is! Politics is a dirty game.
Erica Wilson Armour
It is not South Carolina’s tradition. That is how I would sum up this ad. Since that South Carolina is nothing more than a Republican state we see and hear that what Don Beatty supports is not what South Carolina “values.” The Conservative party wanted to make a statement by starting off with what Don Beatty believes in and how it’s not South Carolina’s tradition such as cutting back on public funding for abortion, voted against gun rights and voted against tax cuts. It is all negative issues towards Don from the Republican Party. Not only does this ad tries to point out what Don is doing wrong in the Republican eyes, but it also brings out what our national government is doing. They are blaming the Democrats for allowing this country for going down. On issues like banning pray in schools, legalizing gay marriage and restriction of property rights. What the Republicans are trying to do is build a case against Don Beatty (a Democrat) so he would not get voted into the Supreme Court. I myself look at this ad and think how much of this is true and what are the Republicans over exaggerating. It is clearly obvious that the Republicans don’t care too much for this guy and they believe that there is someone else out there to represent what South Carolina values. Which on the Republicans side they are doing their job because they would like to have someone from their side to take that seat but on the Democrat side which they hate that this was brought up I’m sure because it was nothing but negative towards Beatty but they need to find a way to clean up what the Republicans did and get even with them. It’s all about politics. Whenever there is any seat to be filled in politics there is always someone willing to trash/ say negative things to get ahead. It always seems that way to me and I don’t see it changing. That’s Politics for you!!!
Randy Lucas
Wow, politics have hit a new low in this ad. The politic ad was against Don Beatty to gain a seat in the S.C. Supreme Court. I think this ad was more of a stab not only to Don Beatty but also to democrats in general. It stereotyped the democrats for accepting issues like guy marriages, abortions, banning prayer from school, etc. What surprises me the most is the ad says liberal judges banned prayer from schools. Look, I believe in the Bible and I’m republican (even though I disagree with Bush), but banning prayer in school should be place in order to separate church and state. Having a single religion influencing an entire government system would alienate other cultures, completely change the education progress, and violate the belief of the Constitution. The ad also scrutinizes the judge’s performance record in areas like abortion, gun rights, and property rights but gives no valid sources on where they got the information. Another thing that strikes me is the ad also refers the need to appoint a judge a connection but puts a cute photo of a family. The ad’s effect was not very good, instead of adding fear into having Don Beatty as a judge; it made me question further on whom in the legislature is representing me? What if the beliefs the judge have coincide with some of the things I’d like to see happen? What is my legislature’s belief s? And why did they create an ad that only has half-truths? The politics of S.C. seems to be focused on the values of a person instead of seeing some of the accomplishments made by candidates. The ad does point out one big fact, that S.C. is a big conservative state.
Xavier de Jesus
Everyone needs to look at the ad again! You are getting the obvious stuff, but missing the most subtle yet clearly most important and unethical thing in the ad! If you are really ambitious, find out what happend to the candidate in question! And yes, I will accept second postings on this one!
Bob B
This ad was interesting to me for a couple reasons. By using the issues whixh seem to be most important in todays society, abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts, etc., the ad was able to get peoples attention. What i thought was funny was the way they talked about Beatty, then they flash to a black and white picture of him, saying that he dosent have South Carolina Values, then flash to a white family playing in the forest. I feel that this is pretty much saying that South Carolina values are those held by white people so we can't appoint a black judge. I also find it interesting how at the end of the ad, they show the mugshots of the conservative politicians who support Beatty, then give thier phone numbers and say we should call then and ask why.
matt burroughs
The ad is a wonderful example of how political South Carolina's sysem is. The interest groups here have placed pressure on the candidate. They gave so many fallacies and turned his platform into lies. While they tried to defame Mr. Beatty, they were able to distract attention. Although we allow legislators to choose judges, the opinios of some interst groups are influential.
I don't think the ad was fair because it just bashed the man. It was effective in getting my attention. I'm sure it got a lot of viewer's attention, because the ad discussed major issues that are usually controversial in South Carolina. From this ad, I also could see that politics in South Carolina is still largely based off of tradition. The topics discussed in the ad were also about important values held in the south. People in South Carolina tend to think that if someone goes against these values, then they don't deserve to be a representative of the south.
Ok, first off out of control liberal judges? That stood out the most to me in the ad. Because a person believes in separation of church and state, legalizing gay marriage, abortion, and is against gun rights makes them out of control? And while SC may be a republican state, the ad also noted that Spartanburg county legislators, several at that, support a “left-wing” politician. So these legislators are republican and supporting democrat’s ideas. Of course the ad is bashing Mr. Beatty that’s obvious but I believe it also shows the diversity in the state like mentioned before, Republicans are supporting Mr. Beatty along with his ideas. I won’t lie politics is not my favorite thing partly because I have such a hard time understanding logistics of it all, but I do know that whether a republican state or not that South Carolina cannot be completely defined by “religious” values. The entire state is not religious. I hate to say it but it’s true. I believe the ad deepens into diversity and I simply believe that South Carolina is just not diverse enough. My own family here are strict set in their ways and they are not changing opinions, most of the south is like that so of course when someone comes in with ideas to change what’s been in the past for so long of course people are going to throw a fit. I did some more reading on this and found at wltx.com, which is a news station that Mr. Beatty was elected. I found this quote very interesting "South Carolina is diverse, so our justice should be too. But more importantly, this is about finding someone qualified and he is," added Represenatative Harry Ott.
-Kaycee Doying
Former legislator Beatty was elected to fill the seat of the retiring justice. I believe the most profound and unethical part in the ad, is the broken symbol of justice. Maybe being a democratic judge is not a part justice. Ultimately, I believe Judge Beatty’s was elected because he was one of “them”. The ad says so much in sixty seconds, but I noticed everything the conservatives in action stand for are in color. While things they are opposed to are in black and white.
DeQuawn Smith
After reviewing the ad, a couple of things stood out to me: 1) the attack on liberals and 2) how it draws people’s attention to call a LEGISLATOR to tell them that is a bad decision. This goes right along with what the book talks about legislators electing who goes to the justice department. The judicial selection process should be done by the governor and not be left up to politicians. These politicians are having to much influence from other people outside of the political arena. There is so much pressure put on legislators to pick the right judge and it possibly changes how the judges rule on certain things. The judges face pressure to satisfy those who put them in office no matter what side of the aisle. No, I do not think the ad is a fair one. It tells you a lot about SC politics because it shows how involved some people are with their legislators and the influence they have on them. The legislators should have never been shown in the video with their numbers on their. The attack on the party and the person is part of the campaigning and politics. It is inevitable and will always take place. However, the calling out of legislators to change their vote is not fair. That changes politics, that takes something out of it. I think the ad could have accomplished exactly what it wanted to do. It would get the legislators involved in this process more than they should be. However, this is how SC does things and I am not sure if it will ever change. The legislature should not be a part of judicial affairs in this matter.
Matt Spivey
Well I’m not so sure what I’m supposed to say about the ad. I have listened and listened to the ad and I can’t think of anything else to say about it. I have listened to it so much that I pretty much know what it’s going to say without the volume. Haha! So with that said I thought that maybe I should play the ad without the volume and see if there is anything that I could pick up from the ad. I don’t know if this is something or that I am way off but the photos that are being used in the ad is drawing attention to me. Some are colored and some are black and white. I feel like that the ones that are colored are the ones that means something to South Carolina. Like those photos are South Carolina’s values and the ones that are black and white are those that South Carolina DON’T value. It makes sense to me but I don’t know if that is what they meant by that. I am not sure if I am looking too much into it now or what but that’s what I think is the hidden message. If it is that then I can understand why so many people would have missed it, just like I did, because we all were paying close attention to the words that the ad was saying and not so much to the photos.
Randy Lucas
Randy and I talked about this earlier today trying to figure this question out because we see that we were missing the main point and I agree with him that it has to do with the pictures. Gay marriage and abortions are black & white in the ad. We all know good and well that those are two VERY controversial issues here in SC. While they used the gun rights, tax cuts, property, and prayer schools all in color. Watching the ad without the sound makes a world of difference. You can see that the color photos are all things that here in SC we acknowledge and while there may be some arguments over them they are not nearly as controversial as the black & white photos. South Carolina's values are portrayed in this video and we can see that the ones in black & white are clearly things that are not apart of our state's values.
Kaycee Doying
I was not sure what exactly I was missing; however, after reading what Matt, Randy, and Kaycee wrote the communication style of the ad made a lot more sense.
I looked for more information on Beatty. Turns out, he is the 2nd African American to serve on the Supreme Court since Reconstruction, and 3rd ever to get elected in South Carolina. This particular race had a lot of controversy attached to it as well (racism, vote swapping, nasty ads, ect).
Several lawmakers switched their votes to Beatty in the 3rd ballot (one from my hometown GREENWOOD and one from AIKEN!)
The ad calls Beatty and "ULTRA-LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTISAN, which basically represents the complete opposite of how most South Carolina residents classify themselves (not to mention the word ULTRA).
Beatty was a former judge, which means he has been through law school. Anyone that has gone through law school, passed the bar, and been a judge in South Carolina should be considered competent no matter what race they are. The ad uses the conservative and republican name to ride their racism, which is not fair for liberals, blacks, or democrats.
Julie Kate
Ok -- I waited as long as I could to let everyone look at it several times and think about what is in the ad. Most of you gave good thoughtful answers and several were close, but only one got it completely!
Every speech of message has three ways in which it attempts to be persuasive, three kinds of appeals, if you want to think about it that way: logical, emotional, and ethical, or to use the terms employed by Greek philosophers (Aristotle I think), logos, pathos, and ethos. Logical and emotional are self apparent in meaning, but ethical is not as obvious. This refers to making the listener feel that the speaker is like them, speaks for them, can identify with them, and even suffers for them.
The ad attempts logical appeal by referring to a LEGISLATIVE voting record. That is questionable in logic since it ignores Beatty's record as a judge -- which can be accurately characterized as moderate. They could find nothing in his judicial record to criticize, so the went back to his previous career.
The ethical appeal is that those running the ad are like the presumed viewer, South Carolinia Republicans with conservative South Carolina values, which these questionable legislators are betraying. The ad has a little more appeal on this one.
The last kind of appeal, and according to most of those who study communication, the most important kind of appeal is emotional. And here is where the ad was below the belt. Let me directly quote THE STATE newspaper columnist Cindy Scoppe on this (you could have found this if you went to The State through the USCA Library and searched on the name "Don Beatty"):
"But the TV attack ad by a fringe group with a demonstrated absence of scruples: That was race-baiting. Not because it showed Mr. Beatty's face; it would be strange not to show a picture of the person you're attacking. What made it race-baiting was the way it managed to juxtapose his black face with the image of that extremely white young family just as it called for a judge with "South Carolina values." That, according to my ad-savvy friends, is classic; anything more blatant would have been a turnoff to all but the most unreconstructed racists."
Congratulations to Matt B who saw the underlying racial message that these people thought would have a strong emotional appeal to viewers -- perhaps because Matt is a northerner?
Also congratulations to Kaycee for doing research and finding out the Judge Beatty won the legislative election despite the ad -- it did not work! Maybe the racial attacks no longer work, even if they are subtle? That would be a nice conclusion to draw that suggests that perhaps the state has made some progress.
And congratulations to DeQuawn for being the first to see the use of color to try and have an emotional impact.
While I gave many of you S+'s on this for detailed thorough analysis, even though you did not see the race thing, I decided to give these three a bonus S+.
A couple of other observations before I end this comment. First, judicial elections used to be almost entirely an internal legislative affair -- legislators lobbied with other legislators to get enough votes to become a judge and outside groups did not have much to do with it. That is how Beatty became a judge in the first place -- he like so many past judges came from the legislature. Now that we have changed the rules and made it harder for legislators to become judges, outside groups have become more involved. We will see publicity campaigns like this in the future when positions are open.
Second, politics will always be involved in who becomes a judge, whether the governor makes the initial appointment or whether the legislature chooses or whether judges run in a state-wide elections for posts, like in North Carolina. In Mr. Beatty's case, I would suspect (I cannot prove this) that he got some Republican support for his initial position because he was part of the group of black Democrats who joined forces with Republicans in the 1990s to redraw legislative districts to create more minority-majority districts that also ended up creating even more safe Republican districts, which greatly helped the Republicans win and maintain strong majorities in both houses of the legislature. We will look at that again in the parties and elections section of the course.
Third, in looking at ads, remember that pictures have far more impact than words. They can give subtle psychological messages that the viewer may not even be aware of -- and in some cases, like this one, the message had better be subtle and not overt or else the ad will backfire because modern social etiquette says that we should not be racists, even if we may harbor hidden prejudiced values.
Finally, the phrase "activist judges," which is often used by political conservatives to criticize judges who make liberal rulings is really a misused phrase. This particular ad did not use that phrase, focusing rather on so-called "ultra liberal Democrats," which they thought would carry more weight in our heavily Republican state. Nevertheless, you should know what an activist judge is. An activist judge is one who creates new rights that are not clearly existing in either the Constitution or in law, a judge who does not leave these matters to the other two branches of government. Well, that could be liberal OR conservative. Recently the SC Supreme Court found that pregnant women who use illegal drugs can be charged with child abuse of the fetus. The legislature has refused to pass legislation going that far, but the court made the ruling anyhow, extending rights of a born child against abuse to the fetus. Interesting that conservatives did not complain about this clearly activist decision. So you should understand that judicial activism can be in EITHER direction, liberal or conservative. And when conservatives complain about activist judges, they are not being intellectually honest unless they also complain about activist judges in the conservative direction.
Post a Comment