Because You Never Asked

     (I put this essay up on my website just two weeks before the elections of 2004, ten years after it was written. There has probably not been an electoral campaign since that time that has not broken the record for money spent and this one is surely no exception. This essay and the one called "Campaign Reform Revisited", which also appears on this website, are now more timely than ever. The ease with which this tyranny of big money could be defeated is explained in both of them. The fact that this has still not happened is vivid proof as to the insincerity of the politico-business class that foils our democracy.)

     If some analogous historical chronology relating to real history might be applied to this series of essays, the one about Ross Perot (see essay "Ross Perot") would fall somewhere around Babylonia and Assyria. It's been more than two years since it was written, yet its fundamental message is still quite relevant (as I hope all my essays eternally are). I quote from it now: "The true disease that is rotting the core of our system is the gargantuan amounts of money needed to run for office. Simply putting someone in office who's personal fortune makes him immune to such groveling is not only no solution, but a very dangerous precedent."

     There's nothing more gratifying for a chicken soup philosopher than to be able to say, "I told you so." As the '94 elections roll around, there are enough jillionaires funding their own campaigns to begin calling it a trend. The most prominent of these attempts is by a fellow named Huffington, who has spent around 20 million dollars, give or take five million, in trying to become a senator from California. A number of pundits and ivory towered PhD's have begun to take note. Hey, maybe this isn't such a good idea?

     "I told you so."

     Unlike the weather, we can do something about reforming our electoral campaigns. That it's been all talk up until now is one of our nation's great tragedies, because we are not truly a "democracy" until this reform is a reality. As things stand now, we are no more than a "totalitarian technocracy" that responds to nothing but business interests. This Business Tyranny (see essay "The Revolution and Capitalism") has thoroughly coerced the electoral process. Its point of view is the only point of view being effectively expressed. That is not very democratic.

     There are many sincere people trying to reform the way in which we choose our representatives, but they are being very naïve in their efforts. The main thrust of their labor generally revolves around limiting the amount of money being spent. These machinations are doomed to failure because there are always shysters around capable of circumventing the rules. A far better approach would be to construct an electoral framework that makes large sums of money unnecessary, and there is a giant first step available that could start us down the right road with a full tank of gas. Here it is:

     No candidate, person, or interest group of any kind should ever be allowed to purchase time on commercial TV or radio in order to make political statements. This does not mean we eliminate these great means of communication from the electoral process, but rather, we begin to use them in a way that most displays a candidate in a spontaneous, unadulterated manner. There shall be mandated, official debates. There shall be mandated, officially organized question and answer press conferences. Perhaps we could throw in some free time for each candidate to speak live to the electorate. We will finally begin to see a candidate in a way that most exposes his or her strengths and weaknesses. No longer will we let a candidate hide behind an image created in a commercial. We will flush them out from behind their smokescreens and camouflage and make them stand in a place we can clearly see them. No more bull!

     Obviously, a candidate's access to this new electoral framework will have to be given some criteria, surely not an impossible task.

     Reform such as this would go a long way towards democratizing and spiritually uplifting the way in which we choose our leaders. Let's talk about democratization first:

     An election like the one loosely described above would democratize the process by drastically reducing the amount of money needed to be an effective candidate. Keeping up with the Jones's and their paid commercial spots has become a mega-bucks affair. If it is taken out of the formula you've immediately gone a long way in eliminating the influence of gigantic bankrolls provided by special interests. More points of view would have the opportunity to be expressed, more people could become viable candidates, money would have less control. In short, we'd have something that begins to resemble a "democracy".

     What about "spiritual uplifting"? We can all agree our political circus can use a good dose of such. The paid for, contrived, commercial propaganda that has become such a major part of our electoral burlesque has done much to befoul the image of our candidates and our system. It is not inspiring to present the people who will be governing us in the same way we sell telephone companies, toothpaste, corn flakes, or "real food for real people". We are inherently skeptical of commercials. We know they are not meant to be objective. We know the truth is not even the goal of a commercial. We get sick of commercials, and it is no different simply because the product being sold is a senator, president, or animal control administrator. To be blunt . we probably learn less, are mislead more, and become more confused and frustrated due to these political commercials, than any other aspect of our political process. It's time to get Madison Avenue out of the political process. NOW!