Because You Never Asked

     (This essay was written in 1996)

     With the help of the more than half century of stimuli bombardment I have been subjected to, it has come to my attention that the participation of the American people in their own electoral process is the lowest of all the politically mature, democratic regimes in the world. In other words, of all the countries that stage an electoral fandango similar to ours, it is the American rank and file that sits home on Election Day with their game shows and soap operas the most. This could be construed as a strident black eye for the nation that most trumpets such democratic ideals in the world.

     It is not unreasonable to suggest that the form this election circus has taken on in the post television era has something to do with such popular revulsion for the process. The way in which this magnificent tool of communication is used is not just relevant to participation, but could also have a serious effect on the quality of person who runs for office. If it is used in a way that helps the voter see who a candidate really is, it can help produce excellent public officials. If it is used to create artificial images, to distort and camouflage the essence of a candidate, we are all losers to the special interests who pay vast sums of money to create these images. Television can make or break our political system.

     With the presidential election of 1996 drawing closer, it's encouraging to see some serious discussion of this topic. It seems a serious journalist from one of our more serious newspapers, The Washington Post, in conjunction with some serious business-politico honchos, has made a serious proposal to the national networks, suggesting they offer free time to the serious presidential candidates, such time to be used in the way they deem fit.

     This is getting serious.

     Obviously, such proponents understand that the way in which we currently use television in the electoral process is degrading it, when, if used properly, it could be so instrumental in purifying and enhancing it.

     This is good,

     but it is only a timid, albeit welcome, first step. What is most lacking is the crux of what I wrote about in my first essay on this subject, that being a ban on political advertising on commercial television (see essay "Campaign Reform"). This suggestion goes woefully unattended to by the Ripkenesque regulars of television punditry, although the idea is not entirely new. During one nerd-like discussion of campaign reform witnessed in the backwater realms of a C-Span afternoon, the round table participants spent a half an hour discussing limitations on political contributions, proper disclosure, matching funds, and other such ineffective, easily circumvented rubbish. Finally, near the end of the show, someone suggested that a ban on political commercials might be a positive step. This sent a vague wave of discomfort around the room, as if everyone had just gotten a touch of heartburn. Although they could not come up with any concrete reasons not to do such a thing, their attitudes suggested something vaguely un-American here, as if banning a commercial were some kind of Yankee heresy. Eventually, someone decided it would be "unconstitutional", free speech and hidy-ho, a concept readily accepted with great relief and no further discussion.

     This constitutional copout had me feeling like John McEnroe on the wrong end of a close call.

     The United States constitution is an elegant, scholarly document worthy of respect and admiration. Free speech is a noble idea inherent in any enlightened society. If somebody thinks Pamela Anderson is a skanky, zitz-riden hag, they should be able to say it to whomever they want, whenever and wherever they please. Prohibiting ambitious shysters from buying false images of themselves does nothing to blunt this freedom. For one thing, their political advertisements are not "free". If these politicians are able to use a communications device that permits them to reach millions of people instantly just because they have the money and the rest of us don't, then maybe the rest of us are being denied our rights. If the purveyors of the nicotine habit have been denied access to this massive tool of persuasion because their product is deemed unhealthy, the same concept can be applied to political ads. They are unhealthy to our political process and we should be cured from the disease they propagate.

     My blueprint for a healthier, more enlightened election campaign is not limited to a ban on commercials. Television can be a magnificent educational aid and its positive qualities should be used to the max.

     Two of the finest forums for political discussion are debates and press conferences. These two venues should be formally instituted into the electoral process, just as the first Tuesday in November has traditionally become Election Day. For example, why not set aside two dates each election year --- say the first and third Tuesdays in October --- for mandatory debates? Following this model, the first and third Thursdays in October could be set aside for hard ball press conferences where the candidates would have to field the hottest ground balls hit their way. These events could be shown during our traditional evening news hours, commercially free and on all national networks. I would suggest no audiences at the debates, so as to eliminate clapping contests amongst partisans, and each candidate's press conference would be taped in the afternoon, back to back, with neither candidate privy to the other's remarks. In the utmost spirit of fair play, who went first or last could be flip-flopped from one Thursday to the next, thus minimizing whatever advantage such chronology might cause.

     As I re-read this essay, what jumps out at me is the ease with which this could all be done. If we put aside the constitutional smokescreen flustering a ban on political advertising, there is nothing radical in any of this, nor are there any difficult logistics to deal with. Such a campaign format would take on the following form: the traditional whistle-stopping, campaign bluster, dutifully covered by the media, culminating in the soon to be traditional debates and press conferences that will be the pivotal focus of the campaign. The ban on advertising will make it much less expensive, and the debates and press conferences will make it much more enlightening, especially if the mind pollution of advertising is eliminated. The true person who is the candidate would have a far better chance to appear . and that's what we want to see, isn't it?

     Real candidates for real people.