From Federalists and Anti-federalists, to now Democrats and Republicans, politicians have been arguing over the roles of government and its involvement in American society for over 230 years. As originally defined by James Madison in “Federalist Paper #51”, government is a “reflection on human nature” set in place to counter individuals’ ambitions that would resort society back to tyranny for no man or politician is an “angel” (Madison N.P). Yet even with this recognition that some type of government is a necessity to humanity, politicians still debate on the teetering demarcation line- although more focused on specific topics such as the economy- of how much government is too much or too little. In 1984, Republicans supported incumbent Ronald Reagan’s Trickle Down Economic Policy which provided benefits to the rich while taking a very hands off policy to the poor and middle classes while in contrast Democrat Walter Mondale argued for extreme governmental control of the economy in terms of federal budget to limit human nature’s selfish desires. Addressed after a period of staggered economic growth for the lower and middle classes following the recession, candidates Reagan and Mondale questioned the roles of government in regards to economic policy; ultimately conveying the ideal that the extent of governmental involvement in American society is defined by individuals’ ambitions rather than detained by them.
Since the first televised political debate in 1960, politics have shifted from simply being policies on a ballot to a theatrical presentation of character, charisma, and appearances. In the 1984 debate of Reagan vs Mondale, both candidates present their argument – according to the article “Elections as Theater” by Chou et al.- as “a theatrical spectacle” or performance, incorporating theatrical techniques such as lighting or an “engaging backdrop” in order to persuade audiences of their policies (Chou et al. 43-44). Before even discussing the economy, Mondale among other democrats in the second Presidential Debate addressed Reagan’s age and how “tired” he looked during this campaign with the intention of shaping a visually wary appearance of Reagan (Mondale, 2nd Presidential Debate, 1984). By stating his “tired”, sickly, and “old” appearance democrats attempted to display the ideal that age reflects fragility, and that a person of a fragile or “tired” stature is mentally deteriorating, and therefore incapable of running a nation. With this form of visual presentation Mondale denounces Reagan’s credibility while depicting his opponent as both unstable and untrustworthy for in many cases, as stated by Ian Watson, “impressions are privileged over substance” (Watson 349). Yet Reagan in response during the same debate uses his appearance to his advantage to state that he will “not exploit… his opponent’s youth and inexperience” (Reagan, 2nd Presidential Debate, 1984). He, in comparison to Mondale, displays “youth” as “inexperience” and naivety, and “old” age as wisdom, which strengthens rather than weakens his credibility for experience and knowledge in our society is a reflection of an individual’s’ success. Reagan reiterates his credibility by adding comments on Mondale’s use of theatrical techniques like “makeup” that would even make Reagan “look younger too”. By exposing Mondale’s persuasion techniques he depicts the ideal that theatrical politics and its ways of falsifying visual images reflects forgery, and if a candidate was willing to incorporate false visual performance in their campaign than their policies too can also be forgery; simply a “role {they] have [been] called upon to play” in order to to persuade voters, and by those means untrustworthy (Dasgupta 79). By appealing to voters sense of morality, both candidates begin to question policies by the means of human nature, rather than just simply using staging techniques to establish arguments.
Reagan begins his argument for this campaign by attempting to align himself with the entirety of the electorate, in hope of appealing to their common ambitions and values. He asks of his audience if they “were better off than 4 years before” his prior term began with the knowingly intention that each individual will probably answer yes, for in the years before his inauguration the nation was in economic turmoil (Reagan, 1st Presidential Debate, 1984). Humans by nature prosper in safety, in confinement of their own comfort zones, and with voters recognizing that they were “better off” now, the likelihood of them being “better off” 4 years later with Reagan in charge seemed to be a high possibility. Knowing that the general population feared change and instability he centered his campaign around this general question in hope of distracting the public from his flaws behind his policies. In his first Inaugural Address, Reagan stated that the “economy [was] swollen” and “inefficient” and proposed to “reduce personal income tax rates” as his main strategy to improve the economy (Reagan, 1st Inaugural Address, 1980). Reagan used word choices such as “swollen” or “inefficient” in order to establish a melancholy tone to exaggerate the problems of previous policies and push for a drastic change diverting his audience away from his real agenda: to help promote the rich and the idea of small government by “reduc[ing] personal income tax rates”. Since Reagan’s main ambition was to aid the rich and allow funds to slowly trickle down to the middle class and poor, he mustn’t focus on appealing to the upper classes- for they are already pleased by his policies- he must direct his attention on convincing the general population that he should be president regardless of whether or not his policies will meet their individual needs. This tactic of misdirection and fruitful use of diction fools his audiences, once again leaving Reagan as the “actor” on a stage constantly hiding behind a mask that society wants him to display (Dasgupta 80).
However on the other hand, Mondale directs his call to action on exposing Reagan’s mask of deceit, on revealing the truth to an electorate cowering in their own skins for fear of change. Mondale in the 1st Presidential debate counters Reagan’s classic campaign of being “better off” by questioning if “that {is] really the question that should be asked?”, instead arguing that “the real question is [if we will] be better off? Will our children be better off?” (Mondale, 1st Presidential Debate, 1984). Mondale calls attention to the gravity of the current situation, that simply settling on what humanity knows is stable will have detrimental effects to our futures, to “our children[‘s]” futures. Society as a whole needs not stability, it needs advancement, it needs progression and growth; and by making the claim that Reagan’s policies will deter progression for their “children” and their children’s children intentionally evokes a level of fear of future consequences greater than the fear of prospering now, inflicting societal pressure to make a change in these policies. Mondale continues to address the gravity of the situation by stating that, “today, the rich are better off… He gave each of his rich friends enough tax relief to buy a Rolls Royce – and then he asked your family to pay for the hubcaps” (Mondale, 1st Presidential Debate, 1984). Mondale intentionally creates separation between “the rich” from “your family” in order to establish a villian in the situation, twisting Reagan’s slogan of being “better off” to allow for the general population to target an unfair cause of the problem. The analogy of the “Rolls Royce” reiterates this for it implies that “the rich” are using “your family’s” tax dollars for meaningless affairs to benefit their own self wants- like a car , while the middle class and poor are forced to pay for the wealthy’s reckless spending of accessories, as in the “hubcap”. Ultimately Mondale is attempting to align himself with his audience by evoking the feeling of deceit and anger towards their current situation while imposing a call to action to make a change. However, this factual approach may have very well been the downfall of Mondale’s campaign. Although the general public did not want their “children” to suffer or to pay for “the rich[‘s]” exploitations, Mondale’s campaign was too much of a reality for the electorate. He focused on facts, policies, and problems while Reagan took a more theatrical approach. He, unlike Mondale, gave society what they wanted to see even if he never addressed the consequences, just diverted them or changed the subject; he gave them the “Rolls Royce[s]” without telling them about the “hubcaps”. Reagan played to his strengths as an actor and established an easy going facade in a field, as stated in a later interview, that Mondale was at a “disadvantage” in (Mondale interview, 1985). Ultimately, society’s desire to ignore the truth to meet their wants is the flaw of humanity itself.
Yet, if humanity was always selfless instead of selfish than Madison’s Dilemma would act in two-fold; meaning that a mindless society would result in the same chaos deemed by having no society. Government’s goals, their morals, their actions are all driven by the wants of the people; by their ambitions. If the world thought and worked as one collective body, no decisions would be made for no one would have any basis of any matter, no opinion. Even in seemingly collective regimes such as communism, actions are still shaped by the ambitions of a small few, by a small selectorate who makes decisions on how to delegate common-folks’ society. Society itself is shaped by individuals perspectives, by their moral compasses that deem what is right and what is wrong, and if there is nothing to judge, no basis to take from, no ambition, or desire, or mistakes that allow society to adapt then there is no such thing as morality, no such thing as society. And if there is no society, then there is no government for “power is granted by the people”, thereby no need to debate the governmental sweet spot of economic involvement (Reagan, First Inaugural Address, 1980). We should not be arguing over the ideal stated by Reagan, that “government is the problem” when rather we should be discussing that ambition is our “solution to our [collective] problem” (Reagan, First Inaugural Address, 1980). The word ambition in our society has taken on an adverse form, as originally defined by John Locke in the Second Treatise, ambitions are “irregular passions” and delegation of one’s “power” over another, and the restrainment of ambition is the reason behind government. Yet in reality, it is truly the opposite for ambitions shapes and restrain government more so than the other way around. Societal ambition prevents the government, at least as a democracy, from making decisions to benefit themselves, prevents corruption. Ambition shapes policies while creating levels of extreme, establishing Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Without distinction or ambition the world would not function; this debate would no longer be in argument over social darwinism but over extinction itself. Ambition and selfishness may be a flaw of human nature, but may also act as the linkage to begin to understand others, rather than just tolerate them. Thereby, if society can alter their views of ambition- then humanity should be able to alter their views of each other. In our world of differing opinions as demonstrated by the political debate in 1984, society must turn their eyes away from the dramatics of debate, from big government vs small government, and look forward to a future of collaboration; then and only then will our government- as Madison stated in Federalist 51- be truly governed by “angels”.
