JOE BARBER

Co-Director’s Statement

I have always been fascinated by the ideal of voting. An electorate makes its will known and chooses the politician that best represents their principles and aspirations. But with the 2004 reelection of George Bush as President of the United States that model was sorely tested. Here was a politician who clearly was not running the country well, was dividing the populace, hoodwinked the country into a disastrous war and was giving away billions of dollars in tax revenue to those who were already taken the most advantage of the economy – and yet he was able to win reelection by a clear margin. Where did the system break down? How do bad politicians get elected?

There are three principle components to every election: The candidate and his campaign machine communicate with the population in an effort to get more ballots than their opponents; the press is the interpreter of the messages the campaign sends out; and the voters are the consumers of all this information. By understanding those three components we can improve our government and the people will have the tools to make the right choices.

I made this movie to explore how campaigns can substitute wishful thinking for good ideas, fantasy for reality and lies for the truth. With an awareness of the techniques campaigns use and how to find better information, people can look beyond what the candidates want them to see and understand the truth about the people who would represent them.

Biography

ELECTILE DYSFUNCTION is Joe Barber’s first film. He comes to filmmaking via a circuitous route.

Barber is a trained economist. He studied economics and math at Washington University in St. Louis and political economy and monetary theory for a doctoral degree in economics at the University of Pennsylvania. After graduate school, he started Old City Consulting Group, a Philadelphia consulting firm that provides expert testimony and performs economic analysis of markets and strategies.

Apart from his work in the dismal science, Barber is a sculptor who works primarily in metal and has served as the architect of a huge industrial-minimalist loft.

MARY PATEL

Co-Director’s Statement

As a political journalist for the past 12 years, I was often surprised to learn during my reporting process how many people had so little information on the candidates they elect. Voters, who were not in the “political loop”, relied on the media and candidates’ campaign propaganda in order to make a voting decision. I also noticed what factors voters considered – name recognition and poll numbers. In order for a candidate to get name recognition, he or she must have a lot of money to disseminate that message by TV and print ads. They also must have money to spend on consultants to package them up and trot them out, just like a dog and pony show. In fact, the sad fact of political candidates is that they are just like actors, reading from a script their consultant and speechwriter has prepared for them. Even if a candidate had a new and innovative idea, it would be never be heard on its own, unless a team of spin-doctors had worked the thought over. And Research has shown that voters pay more attention to negative ads than they do positive ones, making the whole process dirtier than it has to be.

The media plays a crucial role in reporting campaigns and while there are many thoughtful journalists who take time to write about issues and position papers, most just focus on horse race coverage, poll numbers or some salacious activity the candidate did at some point in their life to sell papers or boast TV ratings. A sad fact brought out by a few of the journalists is that the war in Iraq could have been avoided if the press corps had held Congress’s feet to the fire when told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. National media were so cowed by the incidents that occurred on September 11, 2001 they were afraid of being called unpatriotic if they criticized the war.

Elections have changed dramatically over the years and money, power, and name recognition are the three basic ingredients for a winner, whether or not that candidate has any qualifications. This would be fine for the corporate or entertainment industry, but not for democracy.

In order to illustrate a campaign in action, I chose the 2006 Pennsylvania US Senate race between archconservative Republican incumbent Rick Santorum and Democratic challenger Bob Casey. This was the highest profile Senate race in the United States. Santorum represented the ideals of President George Bush, pro-war, pro-choice and anti-same sex marriage, which reflected the views of the conservative wing of the Republican Party across the board. The nation was angry in November 2006 and it showed.

I made this film because I want to let the average voter know the process – the whole deal – consultants, speeches, media, lies, getting out the vote, election day activities and ending results.

Vote! It matters!

Biography

Mary Patel has been the political columnist for the Philadelphia City Paper for the past 12 years. Her weekly column Political Notebook is a synopsis of topical political news. Columns focus on the Philadelphia area but also cover statewide and national issues and draw on a vast network of contacts. Ms. Patel has served as a correspondent for the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions on 1996, 2000 and 2004.

She is also part of a rotating panel on an ABC affiliate political talk show called Inside Story aired on Sunday mornings in the Delaware Valley region. She has produced political debates for Greater Media Cablevision and produced and hosted her own political talk show, named after her column.

Ms. Patel recently produced and directed a documentary about one of Al Gore’s Climate Messengers to be aired this winter on the Public Broadcasting Channel. She is a member of the Advisory Board of the Philadelphia Film Society, the sponsoring organization of the Philadelphia International Film Festivals.

Ms. Patel lives and works in Philadelphia.