Because You Never Asked

(11/06)

     For anyone who writes with serious pretensions, the “cliché” is something to be avoided like the clap (speaking of clichés). But there are times when something heard  repetitively is so appropriate, not using it could only be seen as a downgrade.

     “Throwing out the baby with the bath water.”

     By the end of this essay, the appropriate nature of this old saying should be obvious.

     In my essay “Campaign Reform Revisited”, I made the case for banning paid political advertisements on TV and radio as a huge first step in reforming our electoral fandango. The most insistent objection to this idea generally arrives in the form of a “free speech” constitutional question, something I addressed in the above mentioned essay. A recent incident has forced me to revisit and reinvigorate the arguments I made back then.

     Just 2 days ago, I found myself mildly engaged in a political discussion with a good friend. I not only enjoy this person’s presence, but respect his intellect as well. In honor of his favorite baseball team, let’s call him Ted. Within the narrow confines of acceptable American socio-political ideology, Ted votes on my side of the ledger, a factor which made his attitude a bit more disappointing for me.

     In any event, for reasons unknown, the issue of electoral reform rose from the depths and popped its head to the surface. I suggested my idea for advertising bans. Like a Pavlovian dog, Ted reflexively reacted with the free speech objection. He did so with a sanctimonious attitude bordering on something spiritual. “In a capitalist society ---”, etc., etc., as if good ol’ Joe Stalin himself were behind such a tyrannical suggestion.

     There can be no doubt that Ted, like myself, has a deep and abiding affection for the democratic principles the United States is supposedly based upon. Democracy! I’ll salute that.

     The problem is, our democracy is sick. It is not functioning as it should, regardless of how many times the 2 Parties exchange control. The almost singular reason for this is the exorbitant expense necessary to run for office. These huge sums of money, practically speaking, can only be gotten from people and interests with huge sums of money. Ergo, the needs of these huge donors are the only interests effectively being served. This is not very democratic. This is not rocket science (speaking of clichés).

     One of the primary reasons this obscene amount of money becomes necessary, is to pay for all the political ads on TV. This is very expensive. Eliminating this necessity would make running for office much cheaper (duh). In fact, it comes very close to being the only reform necessary in fixing the system.

     So the stakes are very high. The whole concept of democracy as we know it is in play, and I’m not one to let some candy ass idea of free speech get in the way.

     In defending my political advertising ban, let’s start with the most simplistic though hardly less relevant arguments. By implementing such a policy, nobody is being denied their opportunity to say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want. Go ahead, you’ve got a mouth, if you favor dandruff and hemorrhoids, fire away, nobody will stop you. If somebody invites you on their TV or radio show; if someone wants you to express something in their newspaper, fine, your ideas are being solicited by others. You can blubber away on the www. Let it fly. A ban on paid political ads levels the playing field in the market place of ideas, without stopping anyone from expressing them. There is not one thing said in a political ad that can’t be said anyway. This level playing field is the oxygen supply of democracy.

     People from the Ted wing of free speech definition, conveniently --- forgive me Ted, “conveniently” is not the proper word. The “Tedians” are sincere people. They mean well. Unlike most of our elected officials, in bed with the money that got them there, they are not protecting any self interest.

     I’ll rephrase: people from the Ted wing of free speech definition mistakenly overlook the fact that there are already numerous restrictions on what can be said or shown on TV and radio. When’s the last time Bart Simpson said “you’re a fucken cuntlapper” (and Bart’s the kind of guy who’d say something like that)? Most live shows have a 7 second tape delay meant to protect our eardrums from any offensive intrusions. I once saw a Chris Rock stage performance on Comedy Central that was pretty much bleeped into oblivion (and it was taped).

     Picture this: you’re watching the Super Bowl. It’s a good game. A sign rolls by on the “crawl” at the bottom of the screen --- “beautiful, naked, buxom women performing erotic acts, now showing on channel 10”. If you are a real man, the Super Bowl is now a dim memory. But it is not allowed!

     And that is not even mentioning the bans imposed on such mainstream products as cigarettes or alcohol (now somewhat relaxed, but not for constitutional reasons). One might disagree with some, all, or none of these prohibitions, but they do, in fact, legally exist. To disallow what might be an effective solution to a critical flaw in our democratic process, based upon some overly-romanticized concept of free speech, seems grossly counter-productive.

     This would be a good time to inform the “Tedians” that this ban on political advertising is not a radical idea. It already exists in some of the world’s most traditional democracies. Anyone who has ever been to Holland can surely agree that it is not an “oppressed” place. In fact, just about anything goes in Holland (strangely enough, there are some nights I’ve never been able to remember that ironically attest to this). One cannot feel uncomfortable in saying Holland is a freer place than America has ever been. It is prosperous, democratic, capitalistic, everything Ted would love in a country (minus the weather). It has had a ban on political ads for quite some time. Does anyone think the Dutch wake up in the morning and feel tyrannized?

     At this juncture in history, the most pressing problem compromising America’s most sacred principles --- freedom, democracy, equality --- is the excessive role of money in our electoral process. A ban on paid political advertisements is an effective, easily implemented solution to the problem. To reject such a solution based upon some convoluted, tortured interpretation of free speech, is a clear example of ---

     “throwing out the baby with the bath water.”

     Relevant Material - For a further discussion of how political ads mislead more than inform the voter, as well as an in depth guide as to how TV and radio should be used in our political process, see essays, “Campaign Reform” and “Campaign Reform Revisited”.