Campaign Thoughts
Even though the first ever super duper Tuesday will not be happening for more than a year, the mass neuroses of primary season has already begun. Although I am trying to be a brave human as defined by the fine folk who make a habit of reading and posting herein, cousins, I am a-scairt. Let me tell you why.
The leading Dems have raised 25 million apiece, and the Repubs almost as much, yet I have yet to hear about any of these “front runners” delivering a major policy address that included a specific proposals for legislative policy, with the sole exception of John Edwards. I understand that Mr. Edwards has put forth a detailed and specific legislative proposal for universal health care. I decry the lack of specifics from the supposed front-runner candidates, but that is not what I want to discuss. I applaud Mr. Edwards willingness to make a specific legislative proposal that he will have to defend, but I am not going to comment either for or against his proposal. I would like to take a position and be able to fulcrum that position to either support Mr. Edwards, or use his proposal as a measuring stick for other candidates on this vitally important (to me) issue. I can’t. I do not know what his position is, other than that it purports to provide universal care and to pay for it without bankrupting the country. It is this not knowing the specifics I want to comment on.
I am a reasonably educated person. I have spent way too much time and money on degrees and post graduate education. I am a reasonably well informed person. I read the editorial section of the Paper of Record most every day. I read the Local Rag and the local weeklies too. I get most of my news from NPR and I catch NewsHour in the car fairly often. I want to be an informed participant in our democracy, and I put some effort into it. I make sure I understand local political issues so that I can vote intelligently in local primaries and elections.
The positions taken by our local elected officials are SO much easier to understand - either they are in favor of expanding the county jail or they ain’t. They can explain cost overruns to local capital improvements or they can’t. They either want to fund arts and music programs in the high school or they don’t. I can get my mind around the positions. This allows me to find congruencies with my own priorities and then make reasoned choices without reference to the label a particular candidate is wearing. But I do not know how to do that in the presidential arena. That is why I am scared.
The choice we will be making a year and half from now will have ramifications that will echo for generations. I say that I want candidates who will have a serious debate about the issues, and I certainly want that as opposed to mudslinging and character assassination. Yet the candidates have not even begun to put out positions and the field is being winnowed down. What great ideas will be lost due to a failure to run well in the “money primary”? And even when there is a specific position taken by a candidate, such as Mr. Edwards’ healthcare policy, I can’t discuss it intelligently other than to say it exists! So what to do? I mean that as a serious question, it is not rhetorical. What do we do? Once the issues are so large, and the answers so complex that you need a Masters in Public Administration to understand the ramifications of the proposals and the alternatives, how do we make a responsible choice in voting for the person we want to lead this country, without making it a full time job? Are any of the candidates NOT complete piles of bullpuckey? What commentators can we trust as reliable?
I do not have a strong answer to the dilemma, but I know what I am going to do about it. I am going to keep on reading the Paper of Record and the Local Rag. I am going to keep read the candidates’ websites and position papers hoping for clear answers to impossible questions. I am going to try and ignore the labels and rely on what the candidates actually say. I am going to measure my priorities against the published comments and positions of the candidates, discuss it all with all of you (and others) and then I’ll choose. Then I’ll hug my daughters and pray for the world I will have helped to leave them.
Todd
April 20th, 2007 17:42
Hi Todd,
There seem to me to be two problems in the issues you raise. The first is the emphasis on money over policy, and the second is the difficulty in understanding that policy, should it ever be presented. I think the two issues are strongly related and the relationship is deadly to democracy.
I have said before on this site that I don’t think it really matters which candidates end up running/winning because all of the likely contenders have already been bought and paid for. No one raises 25 or 30 million dollars in 3 or 4 months without becoming the property of the people who wrote the very large checks. So policy is irrelevant here except in terms of what makes the specific donors happy. In fact, making policy statements that might anger a potential donor is just plain dumb. The donors are buying the candidate that they think has the best chance of winning AND will be most amenable to whatever policies that donor believes are important. The logic here is a) buy the candidate b) get them elected and c) only THEN worry about policy specifics once you have “your guy” in the office.
Once we get past the fundraising we might hope for better coverage of the issues, but I think we will all be disappointed. Firstly, we are NEVER past the fundraising. It is non-stop. In addition to this however, there is STILL little or no incentive to discuss issues as part of a campaign.
Once the “election” starts the candidates’ role will be to say as little as possible about their own position on the issues, while attacking the morals, credibility, and general character of their opponents. This is the essence of “character politics.” It solves the complexity problems with the issues because we voters end up ignoring those issues, and vote for the candidate we like and trust the most (or dislike the least). We have little else to go on, because the issues were never actually covered. The exceptions to this process will be “hot button” issues such as abortion in which the various positions are both relatively straightforward and inflexible. As a candidate, stating your position on these issues is both relatively easy and safe. You only “solidify your base” by being clear here. The logic is that there are few votes to be won from the “other side”. But whatever real debate or nuanced discussion might have been had on these issues is stopped by the very intractability of the positions that are discussed.
I hope I’m profoundly wrong about this, but it seems to fit what we’re seeing. If anyone else has a less dismal interpretation I’d love to hear it. Please.
April 22nd, 2007 01:03
Grant, you might find a recent news item, “Hillary Clinton proposes reform in gov’t“, of interest.
In 2004, John Kerry listed detailed plans and proposals on his Web site. These covered nearly every major area the federal government is involved in and many topics of particular public interest at that time. It was a long read, but informative and mostly interesting. If you wanted to know what his position was on a given matter, all you had to do was go there and read it — something few voters ever did, I suspect.
Some time and close attention are called for. Some familiarization with dull and dirty details is necessary. Some quiet thought and about issues and possible remedies is required. Even then, the issues and proposals can be about big, complicated, specialized matters most people lack the background knowledge to assess fully and expertly. Still, it’s worthwhile to try.
Unfortunately, too many people are content to skim headlines, catch the anemic network evening news shows and a few talk shows, and then make their voting decision on the basis of who they think they’d rather go have a beer with. Who has the better toothpaste-ad smile. Whose spouse seems more attractive or likable. Etc., etc.
Thus, we toss aside serious, honest, decent, experienced and well-qualified candidates who’ve devoted their working lives to public service. Instead, we elect the likes of what we have now: a failed president; a crony- and corruption-riddled administration; rampant waste, fraud and abuse; incompetence run amok; and stubborn insistence on policies and positions the public told pollsters they were mostly opposed to before electing the guy intent on imposing them.
I’m not sure what the answer is. Most people are busy, distracted and not that keen about politics under any circumstances. I hope that in reaction to the current bitter experience, most Americans will make the effort to choose our next president with much more thought and care than they seemed to put into it last time.
April 22nd, 2007 01:14
I should’ve addressed my comment above to both Todd and Grant.
Also, concerning the never-ending money chase that campaigns (political careers, actually) have become, I recently posted U.S. past due for major electoral system reform at Oh!pinion.
It’s my brave stab at coming up with a better approach. I welcome comments and alternative ideas.
April 22nd, 2007 20:18
Grant,
You said: “We are NEVER past the fundraising”. I would add that, once campaign season ends, the actual campaigning never ends, either. See Sen. Reid’s commments about the war being lost, or Pelosi’s trip to Syria which is not within the bounds of a congressman, or the non-binding resolution against the war. These are all posturing against the current administration, just like the Republicans did against Clinton.
S.W.,
You said: “We elect the likes of what we have now: a failed president; a crony- and corruption-riddled administration; rampant waste, fraud and abuse….” I would say this is cyclical, and a by-product of the two-party duopoly. Whichever party is in power, the other party will magnify the ineptitudes, errors, and bad decisions that exist - and they always will somewhere - and will diminish the successes.
Todd,
My main issue with the early campaigning and fundraising is that it defines front-runners. It practically destroys any chance of a viable third-party candidate being electable, and marginalizes any free-thinking Dem or Rep candidate that doesn’t exactly toe the party line. My recommendation would be to turn off the radio, turn off the TV, stop reading the paper, and look wherever you can to find out about the candidates that the press is not advertising, I mean promoting. The press is as invested in these two parties as the parties are.
Regards,
Rick
April 22nd, 2007 23:15
Hello all,
S.W., I tried to get to your blog, and was not able to access it either through the link you provided here or through a general Google link. I WOULD like to read your thoughts on this.
Rick, I essentially agree with you, but still do not know how to address the problem. I’m really stuck with voting for the candidate that I THINK/HOPE is owned by people who have the same biases I do. But this leads to exactly the sort of government gridlock we currently have. “My” guy is not free to act once in office and so cannot govern effectively because of his/her attachment to money people that will tolerate no compromise of their issues. Even if I happen to agree with most of the issues I still lose because the government is gridlocked by politicians who simply CAN’T move on the issues that matter. They MUST remain partisan because the money will go somewhere else if they are not.
April 22nd, 2007 23:50
Rick wrote:
“. . . once campaign season ends, the actual campaigning never ends, either. See Sen. Reid’s commments about the war being lost, or Pelosi’s trip to Syria which is not within the bounds of a congressman . . .”
Re: Reid’s comment, with which I agree, I suppose if one doesn’t agree it’s fair game to say he was just making a political statement.
However, Speaker Pelosi’s trip to the Mideast, including Syria, was very much within the bounds of a member of Congress. You might not like or agree with her decision to go, but that’s a political judgment on your part. There was nothing unprecedented, out of bounds or in any way illegal about it.
Members of Congress have called on foreign leaders in their capitals for a very long time now, including foreign leaders not regarded as friends of the U.S. Republican members of Congress have visited Syria recently, and one was part of Pelosi’s traveling group.
Keep in mind that to go for conversation is not to make deals, set policy or anything like that. Syria’s President Assad knows very well who in the U.S. government does that and who does not. You can be sure he also knows what Pelosi does for a living and what the limits of her role are.
April 22nd, 2007 23:56
Grant, I don’t know why you couldn’t access Oh!pinion, but want to find out.
It would help if you let me know what error message you got. Was it 404, page not available? It could be there was just some kind of problem with the host or server at the particular time to clicked the link.
Please try the link again (I just did and had no problem). If it doesn’t work, let me know here by e-mailing me at s__anderson AT hotmail.com (two underlines after the “s” there, BTW).
April 23rd, 2007 09:59
S.W.- was able to get on the site this morning thanks.
April 24th, 2007 10:27
Hello all,
I’ve read the post that SW has at OH!pinion and I recommend it (he provides the link in comment #3 here). The ideas are pretty radical (TOTAL public funding of all federal elections), but I think are more than worth considering.