George Rebane
Was just thinking about today's more than interesting, long, and expensive election season we all are suffering through. And the money part kind of stuck with me. We know that money drives politics. What drives politicians may be up for debate, but you can’t go too far off base assuming that power, fame, and fortune come in close to the top of the motivation heap.
Today campaigns cost way too much and last too long, especially given the attention span of the typical voter. Two plausible reasons for this are 1) voter dumbth, and 2) constant need for content by the media. The more contentious, controversial, and confusing they can make the candidates’ messages, the more there is to report, analyze, dissect, and goad to keep the election pot boiling, and the more ads can then be sold.
Voter dumbth has been much discussed on these pages. In the large we are ignorant about geography, history, foreign policy, economics, national defense, and current events. We forget easily and often which lets the media shovel the same copy to us with minimal modifications. The campaigns can also be produced and aired as ongoing soap opera over an extended campaign season during which candidates’ scandals, disclosures, revelations, … can be trotted out in a planned sequence to keep the entire affair alive and titillating.
Psychologists and politicians know that to convince such voters requires simple messages (sound bites preferred) delivered from multiple sources, and repeated often with the repetition rate increasing as the election nears. Debates are high points if they promise open conflict between candidates. Media therefore does its best to manufacture contentious candidates.
Such a circus takes lots of money and the nation’s power brokers (read Big Money) are more than happy that such is the state of affairs. The more expensive the better, for then Big Money becomes a requirement which can be satisfied by the candidates only through the promised sale of government goodies. Therefore, the longer the campaign, the better Big Money can evaluate candidates’ chances for success, and the more time for negotiating deals to keep successive tranches of money flowing. All of this would go by the board if our electorate that had more interest in our political process and more between their ears for processing.
My druthers for shorter, more informative, and cheaper campaigns would entail intense use of the internet. Each candidate would have an extensive website whereon they would publish their updated plans, proposals, and positions on issues. Their major speeches would be searchable on video and podcasts in both summary and extended formats. They would participate in ad hoc exchanges (debates) with other candidates from wherever they happen to be. Media pundits and bloggers would be able to analyze the bejeezus out of their published writings and statements, generating comparative matrices of positions and qualifications that we all value when comparing cars and clothes online. Timely responses and/or evasions to nationally publicized questions would be available to all. And online scores of substance over subterfuge and silliness would be generated and maintained for those with deeper interest. In short, the campaigns would become information rich instead a continuing stream of expensive ads and events wherein candidates trade scurrilous/outrageous claims and accusations.
The entire affair doesn’t have to last more than one year (due to the extended primary season) – November to November – and without so many political ads and whistle stopping it would cost candidates about one tenth as much as the hundreds of millions spent today. Such short campaigns would be welcomed by a better educated electorate living under a smaller government having fewer things to sell for influence and votes.
The wrong way to shorten political campaigns and try to reduce their costs is through adding more ‘fair electioneering’ regulations which, if past efforts are any indication, will do nothing but restrict political speech and grow government even more. The other obvious, but more difficult way, is to reduce the stuff that government has to sell to highest bidders. We know that corrupt interests embedded in both elected offices and the vast federal and state bureaucracies will fight tooth and nail not only to keep things as they are, but to also expand the sleaze into every possible nook and cranny of government.
I think it’s safe to say that least attended governments tend more rapidly toward dysfunction and evil. Only a smart and involved people are able to maintain and deserve a liberal government like the one our Founders left us.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment