No, not the end of the world. The end of this election campaign. Called, by some as the nasty one ever. I just want the radio and TV ads AND the phone calls to stop! Just stop.
I’ve loved politics since I was a kid. I remember in 1964 putting an “LBJ” sticker on my Dad’s ’62 Ford Galaxie 500 and him getting mad at me, because as a salesman, what if his customer’s saw the sticker on his car? They might not buy from him if they didn’t agree with his political choice.
Well, who would have thought then, the situation we are in now. Sure, there were big philosophical differences between the political parties then. The Vietnam War was going on, the Cold War was still in full swing and the civil right era was exploding. But, even with a polarizing candidate like Barry Goldwater and some pretty strong political attack ads, the situation is not anything like today. The political attack ad is now just about the only thing you see and the actual truth tends to begin and end with the names of the candidates. Anything and everything is fair game.
I despise the situation we find ourselves in. We are no longer the “United States” of America, but the “polarized, divided states” of America. The level of political discourse as become as uncivil as a playground argument. All fueled by multimillionaire radio talk show hosts, who decry the “mainstream media” but whose rhetoric fueled by books, speaking tours and DVDs have become the mainstream. The other side is not just mistaken about their positions on vital issues, but has become as Satan, the “father of all lies.” Ready to drag the country and its people into hell.
According to the estimates, this year’s political campaign will have spent $4 Billion trying to get our votes. This becomes the most expensive midterm campaign in history, only less than the 2004 and 2008 presidential years. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-27/election-spending-already-a-record-might-reach-4-billion.html)
Imagine what could be done with that money rather than bombard us with attack ads and robo-calls. The sickest part of all is that the majority of that money comes from corporate, union and special interest groups thanks in large part to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which unleashed unlimited political spending by corporations, now defined as persons. Talk about activist judges!
Now, we are stuck, at least for the time being, with not only 527 organizations with their phony “not endorsed by any candidate” ads, but the funneling of money in unlimited quantities without a duty to disclose from whom and where this money comes from.
Really now, is this what our Founding Fathers envisioned? Is this where we want our political process to go? Does all this bitterness and divisiveness help our nation and local communities? And what does it mean for the future of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA?
Wheat & Tares 
Maybe after the election sweeps new leaders into office and nothing changes, we’ll realize the problem lies with ourselves. So long as we voters believe we can all have a pony and a swimming pool in our back yard, we’ll continue to elect politicians who make illogical and irresponsible promises.
Don’t forget the presidential campaign begins Wednesday.
I could be wrong, but I thought that the idea behind a 2 party system is to help keep both sides in check by finding compromise between the 2 opposing viewpoints. In today’s political climate, it seems that any candidate who even attempts to work with the other party is immediately called out and targeted adding to the polarization. Isn’t there some scripture that says something about a house divided against it’s self?
“Don’t forget the presidential campaign begins Wednesday.”
I am afraid that is true. on the other hand, it kinda already started with the early birds in Iowa.
Whatever happened to transparency?
the deseret news is reporting that jon huntsman has formed a political action committee for a presidential run in 2 years. will huntsman split the mormon vote with mitt romney?
“All fueled by multimillionaire radio talk show hosts….”
I see some bias with this one. The folks on the other side of the successful multimillionaire talk show hosts (i.e., not Schultz, Olberman, and Maddow) were calling me and mine Nazis with merry abandon for decades before Rush Limbaugh was ever invented. And the guy whose bumper sticker you put on your dad’s car can fairly be said to have *invented* the scaremongering dishonest negative ad, with that devastatingly effective “daisy” commercial against Goldwater.
Then there is the present occupant of the Oval Office, who tells his supporters to “punish their enemies.” He needs a good Republican speechwriter: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic cords of memory will swell when again touched as surely they will be by the better angels of our nature.
I had to laugh at Jimmy Carter’s lament, yesterday in Utah, about negative campaigning — because ironically, it was his decision to go negative against Reagan in the 1980 election that destroyed what was left of his ginned-up “nice guy” persona, which was pretty much his only remaining asset at that point.
I’m sure liberals may well long for the Golden Age before “divisiveness” — but the only reason there was (supposedly*) less “division” was that their side basically had the media field to itself.
*I say “supposedly,” because I just don’t remember the late sixties through the nineties as being all that nice. I mean, the period 1968-1980, there wasn’t a single election cycle where at least one of the candidates hadn’t been shot and/or shot at.
But enough with the tu quoque. I agree (with Lincoln, quoted above) that excessive internal hostility in a nation is harmful. Look what it did in his time. The question is — what can we do about it?
First, demands for “civility” cannot be used, themselves, as partisan weapons. Because as this post aptly illustrates, we are much better primed to see incivility when it comes from the other side. We have a duty to police our own. We have no business going after motes in the other side’s eye — it just makes us look like we’re seeking cheap advantage. Better simply to take the higher ground. I trust Americans enough to take note, that I am being more civil than the opposition the last time around, without me having to call attention to it.
2. That leads to the next point: We are on an amplifying cycle of incivility. As Mr. Obama so unpresidentially put it (borrowing from a most excellent movie performance), when one side pulls a knife, the other side pulls a gun. The hatred of George W. Bush far surpassed the hatred for Bill Clinton, which in turn was greater than the hatred for George W. Bush. But when the cycle has progressed this far — and unfortunately, “going negative” is deliciously effective — how do you get off the cycle, without letting the other side win (rewarding its incivility)? The answer, I submit, is to dial back at least some substantial distance from the precedent set last time. Don’t unilaterally disarm, but if the other side went around shrieking that your side was putting America on the road to by-god fascism, you can probably content yourself with explaining why *your* opposition is leading us into corporatism (look up the word — it doesn’t mean what Bill Maher et al. think it does) and the like, without giving away too much of an advantage.
3. Finally, be honest. Yes, the other side is always going to call you a “liar” because you decline to buy into their spin on the facts (as if that is the only interpretation possible). Again, though, republican government depends on the people being at least somewhat capable of sorting out truth from untruth. The Internet is a marvelous thing. I like to hope that the day when you could get away with a vague, half-truthy gloss on facts that don’t really support your point, may be passing — it’s too easy for even a marginally conscientious person to Google the full story.
“The sickest part of all is that the majority of that money comes from corporate, union and special interest groups thanks in large part to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which unleashed unlimited political spending by corporations, now defined as persons. Talk about activist judges!”
Corporations have been defined as legal persons since at least the 1880s, with the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific case. (In which, by the way, the justices simply took it as a given that corporations — which had long been treated as “persons” by the law, in the sense of having capacity to sue and be sued — were entitled to the constitutional rights of natural “persons.”)
Anyway, the reason politics now attracts so much money, and arouses so much rancor, is that politics now makes so much more of a real difference. When government was about maintaining the post roads, the Army and Navy, and keeping the courthouses open for people to hammer out their differences under a basic, stable rule of law, there was less incentive for people to spend money that they could surely better use elsewhere on politics.
But now — where government’s whim will literally make or break your ability to stay in business — there is vastly more incentive to try and influence government. The bigger (and less restrained) the government, the more money and effort will be expended trying to capture the prize.
Since today’s government is basically being run by and for Goldman Sachs (which, incidentally, was one of the original grievances animating the Tea Party movement), this is a real problem.
Thomas, #7,
You’ve once again proved that you cannot be anything but strongly partisan, no matter how the post is presented.
One last point, for now:
Since we have become so divided about the basic assumptions that dictate what national policy ought to be (i.e., the classical liberal tradition going back to Locke, Jefferson, the Federalist authors), or the social-democratic ethos with its origins in 19th century Catholic social teaching and German political philosophy), and since we are now a thoroughly multicultural nation (and are encouraged to play up our cultural differences and grievances, the “melting pot” idea having been abandoned as an oppressive fantasy), about all we have left to unite us is…
“[t]he mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave….”
And yet the anchor of those “mystic chords” — the heritage of the Founding — is widely dismissed as a childish fantasy, a papering over of this country’s real character as just one more oppressive, slave-driving, aggressive tribe — indeed, perhaps even more so than most, to hear some of my professors talk. In the last few weeks, it’s become fashionable to make fun of some of us for our “Constitutional fundamentalism,” and our silly three-corner-hat stuff. President Wilson was pretty much the last Progressive to have the moxie to come out and openly say that the Founders’ vision of limited government was obsolete, but one does get the sense that his point is in the air in some quarters.
But if the mystic chords of memory don’t stretch back anymore to battlefields and patriot graves (because we’ve dismissed the value of what those patriots landed in graves for), then what, really, do we have to unite us? If politics really is descending into an unprincipled war of every man against his neighbor, each seeking to enlist the government behind him in making sure he gets what he can, then what is the incentive for the loser (which at some point will be all of us) to be personally loyal to the project?
Jeff,
Same to you, sport.
I’ll take that at least partially back if you can point me to a similar blog post back when the flak was being fired at Chimpy McBushhitler. But the OP was definitely slanted against one particular side of the “divisive” divide, and you seem to place far more blame on the other side (multimillionaire talk show hosts, Citizens United) for the problem than anyone on your own side. (Two points for the brief reference to “unions,” who of course are spending more money than any of the business groups — but the overall impression is still quite one-sided.)
And that’s fine: You are a partisan, and you are primed to make your side’s case as best you can. So am I. As long as both sides play fair, I think this is a good thing: “By proving contraries, the truth is made manifest.”
Finally, re: money, I don’t agree that you can reliably buy elections and policies. (Otherwise, we probably wouldn’t have (along with Japan) the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.) Case in point: My cousin is running for Congress in a Northern California district, where the Democratic incumbent, backed by party money, is outspending him by monumental proportions. My cousin is winning — because he is more persuasive.
Money certainly has some effect (more so when the differences between the candidates are slight), but I’m reminded of the old story about the dog-food company that puffed up its new dog food brand with the best advertising money could buy, only to be mystified when the product didn’t sell. If the dogs don’t like the dog food (or the Edsel — another recipient of lavish advertising), there’s only so much you can do with advertising.
I like political speech. I think there should be more of it.
You speak of $4 billion being spent on this election cycle. First, it’s not as if that money’s being set on fire — it all goes to real people, who spend it, and while that $4 billion could perhaps be devoted to more charitable uses, so could the $200 billion we spend each year on professional sports.
Second, what does that $4 billion buy? Is the average American voter exposed to more or less political speech than, say, a voter for Jefferson over Adams? Unfortunately, society has retreated from the public square into the TV room. To make contact with the people you might once have met in the town meeting or on a stump in the (now empty) town square, you have to buy TV time, or send mass mailers. I suspect that, with all the money that’s spent, the average voter is exposed to less political debate than once was the case. So why on earth restrict it even more?
the deseret news is reporting that jon huntsman has formed a political action committee for a presidential run in 2 years.
Huntsman needs to keep his pants on. He has no constituency within the Republican party at the moment and his profile is not high enough to mount a credible independent bid a la Ross Perot. He should stay put and do his job in China. It’s an important one and, if he does it well, might serve him well in 2016 when the Tea Party will have been discredited.
will huntsman split the mormon vote with mitt romney?
No. Mitt owns it.
“the average voter is exposed to less political debate than once was the case”
Absolutely, rather than hearing more political rhetoric, I would prefer more televised debates where candidates get to talk and persuade us about solutions to real issues.
Jeff,
You think this is almost over? You think anyone is going to let up with 2012 looming on the horizon? Don’t thank God yet. Maybe when He comes down here and pulls us apart, sends us into our own corners and calls a time out, maybe then you can thank Him. For the time being, it seems He is allowing us to be hateful, spiteful, vitriolic, mean, crude, unkind to whatever degree we want to be. Just you wait until Republicans take another crack at Obama in 2012. We’re not done yet with all the negativity.
Jeff,
As if they were nicer to each other. Did you see the 1800 election? Let me tell you, Jefferson and Hamilton (or in other words, the Federalists and the Republican/Democrats) were at each others’ throats about as much as we are now. Not much has really changed, Jeff. One thing I am thankful for is that our church leaders today are not like they used to be (Ezra Taft Benson, for example, calling civil rights activists communists in disguise). I appreciate that. Still doesn’t change much. Mitt Romney is campaigning for Sharron Angle against Mormon Harry Reid even though Sharron Angle has called Mormonism kooky. And so it goes.
LOL! I wasn’t sure what the thing was that was going to be over. I was thinking having a single party dominating was the thing that was ending. My preference is for two-party debate (I used to idealistically wish for an end to bi-partisanism, but now I think it’s vital to thorough exploration of the issues), but I also like my gov’t hamstrung. I prefer for neither party to be able to do too much that isn’t a major compromise. If gov’t’s actions are only convincing to their like-minded cronies, I’m skeptical that it’s the right thing to do. There are exceptions of course.
Course Correction – Wait, I was supposed to be getting a pony?? Which candidate is that? I want a pony!
“Ma, ma, where’s Pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha!”
vs.
“Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine — Continental liar from the State of Maine.”
Plus ca change…
Thomas,
Not this liberal. As I said before, there never was a “Golden Age.”
That’s probably because you silly three-corner hat wearing tea partiers lack an actual understanding of the Constitution. It thus becomes fashionable to make fun with all that grandstanding about taking back the Constitution to some previous “Golden Age of Constitutionalism.”
Where do you get this straw man from? I don’t know any liberal who devalues the life and death of a patriot who died to create this country (Revolutionary War) to save this country from rebellion (Civil War) or to save this country from strong external threats (World War I and World War II). Nor do I know any liberal who devalues the life and death of a patriot who died in Korea. Now, Vietnam, on the other hand, I don’t know people who questioned the value of the lives of the patriots who died, but certainly they question the leaders who got us there. So who exactly are you referring to?
Excellent question.
What does it mean for the future?
I thought I just did a post about Mormon apocalyptic ideas a few days ago. I didn’t even get into freemen versus kingmen in the Book of Mormon.
And it isn’t just the Presidential race that opens Wednesday. All of the divisive legislative battles immediately resume in Congress’s lame duck section — the US federal government still has no budget for the Fiscal Year that began October 1 or a single Departmental appropriations bill. Huge tax increases are coming on autopilot January 1. Lawsuits on Arizona’s immigration law and the constitutionality of the health care mandate are moving forward. Carbon emissions regulations from EPA are being issued. Negotiations on Palestine remain on life support ONLY to prevent breakdown BEFORE the mid-terms.
It seems to me that nothing politically important is almost over. We’re at the very beginning of a long process.
Firetag,
Um, no, that would be a tax cut ending. Blame Bush and the Republicans for pushing that tax cut through reconciliation rather than trying to find a compromise with Democrats back in 2001. It’s not a tax increase.
“That’s probably because you silly three-corner hat wearing tea partiers lack an actual understanding of the Constitution.”
Says you, Mr. Chief Justice. What was your grade in Con Law again?
“Where do you get this straw man from?”
USC Law Professor Mary Dudziak, Comparative Con Law class, sometime in 1999.
I threw out what I thought was a fairly commonplace idea — the notion that America, unlike many earlier nation-states, was not founded on blood-and-soil nationalism, but rather was a “creedal” nation, united not by a shared ethnic or linguistic culture, but rather by a common set of general preferences for liberty and equality.
The essence of her answer was that the true distinguishing characteristics were not liberty and equality, but rather slavery, conquest, and oppression.
Up to that point, I’d heard about such people, but half-wondered if they were figments of right-wing imaginations. Mind you, this wasn’t simply saying that America’s ideals of liberty and equality were achieved imperfectly, being tarnished with injustices we’ve had to work to get rid of: She was saying that the whole project was rotten from the beginning.
That was strong beer even for the self-identified “liberals” in the group, several of whose eyebrows shot up. I suppose you would have been among them. But rest assured that no matter how personally patriotic you may be, the opinion-formers of the true Left do not think highly of the American Founding.
Then we have the Progressive historian Charles Beard, who argued that the Constitution, far from being a far-sighted work of statesmen, was the grubby result of politicians seeking their own economic advantage. The consensus among historians is that Forrest MacDonald pretty much demolished Beard’s thesis in the 1950s, showing with data that Beard didn’t bother addressing that there was virtually no correlation between Congressional delegates’ positions and their economic backgrounds. But in my experience that hasn’t stopped most half-educated liberals from nodding sagely about Beard’s economic theory of the Constitution.
And this is my biggest problem with modern liberal elites: They’re simply not elite. They know far less than they think they know. Whether this is an advantage over some simple Utah farmer with vague Bensonite notions of liberty under attack, is unclear; if anything, the former is the more immune from learning something new.
It is easy to find things to complain about with our system of government. But somehow we’ve managed to maintain and export LIBERTY for a few hundred years.
However, America, as we’ve known it, can be lost if our citizens lose the vision of what LIBERTY is.
In my opinion, our institutions of learning have left our citizens ignorant regarding the genius of America.
We’ve won the important world wars against the enemies of LIBERTY on the battlefields, but don’t seem recognize that we’re losing our LIBERTIES an inch at a time in our homeland by those in power who don’t value or understand what made America great.
The bed rock of America is our Constitution. If we elect those who don’t value or understand it then we will eventually kill the goose with the golden egg, so to speak.
I’m drawn to those politicians who uphold constitutional principles. The rest need to be avoided because by either hook or by crook they will eventually strike a death blow to LIBERTY.
“thank God it’s almost over”
Of couse you mean the out of control spending by Obama and the Democrats in congress. I would have to totally agree with you on this one.
Dan:
Blame Bush for the tax cuts that are ending. OK.
As long as I can blame the liberals for ending them because they refuse to let the Congress vote. Wouldn’t win the vote, would you?
Congress would either extend the cuts another year or two or raise the limit for reimposing tax increases to exempt more small businesses and small investors (e.g., pensioners) from the de-stimulating effects of paying more taxes than we are paying this year.
Can you guys even stay on the topic? Is it possible to have a discussion without it resorting to partisan bickering? Or is this the way it is?
Jeff:
I see your post as a plea for agreement about fundamental paths about which WE DO NOT AGREE IN THIS COUNTRY. The lack of agreement is not going to end next Tuesday, and the issues will still have to be debated over and over again, at every level of government and community life.
The situation in 2008 led to one decision. The situation in 2010 is very different, and it will be very different again in 2012. Debate and emotional involvement in the world as it is are essential to trying to find the Zionic world we seek.
If the Restoration was ONLY about preparing for the next life, JS wasted a lot of time laying out Kirtland, Independence, and Nauvoo.
Firetag,
If that is the case, then I am sorry I didn’t make myself clear.
One can be in violent disagreement but not be violent. One can be at polar opposites with another and not have to act like a 3 year old. Each is entitled to their own opinion on how best to govern the country without resorting to name calling, demonization and lying. Our modern day political process is a disgrace.
To address the specific topic:
Depends which ones you mean. James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, thought that the large size of the national union would tend to prevent factionalism, which he thought would be the curse of smaller jurisdictions like the individual states. Arguably, though, technology and standardization has made the federal union “smaller” and more economically homogeneous (we shop at the same chain stores, listen to the same mass-produced entertainment, etc.) than the individual states used to be. So whatever advantage the size of Madison’s “extensive republic” may once have given, it’s been reduced. And of course the Anti-Federalists (including Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, and arguably Thomas Jefferson) thought Madison was being terribly unrealistic in the first place. Considering how quickly partisanship far greater than our present version developed, they may have had a point.
No, although I disagree that “this” is necessarily the worst we’ve had it, or even worse than it was, say, four years ago.
“Bitterness,” no. We must not be enemies. But “divisiveness”? The alternative to “divisiveness” is bipartisanship. Consensus. Unanimity. Groupthink. Gleichschaltung. I think we need a certain level of opposition in all things, including politics. Otherwise there’s no good mechanism for spotting the horrible ideas that everybody agrees with.
More or less what it’s always meant. See, I don’t buy the initial premises, namely, that the current level of “divisiveness” is unprecedented, or that money in political campaigns is having an extraordinarily distorting effect on American politics. If the United States ever stops being “united,” it’s more likely to be for ultimately financial reasons (like a sovereign-debt crisis) than because we are too forceful in stating our opinions.
“Each is entitled to their own opinion on how best to govern the country without resorting to name calling, demonization and lying.”
The problem here is that “name calling, demonization and lying” tends to be in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes it’s not, as when some moronic TV lady (who thinks that earthquakes and tsunamis are evidence of global warming) calls a candidate a b****. But when other people are called “warmongers” or “socialists” or “elites” or “know-nothings” or “Christianists” or “climate denialists,” presumably those are shorthands for what the words’ users think are objective descriptions.
Ditto “demonization.” When does a strongly-argued argument cross over into “demonizing”? I think describing Goldman Sachs as a “giant vampire squid fastened to the face of humanity” is actually a fairly mild description of that particular gang of pirates, but I can see how someone might call that “demonizing.” Again, a matter of perspective.
Finally, “lying,” in too many cases, means simply “you’re not buying into my well-spun version of the facts.”
Faced with “lying” and “demonization,” you can either complain about how awful the other side is for doing it — or you can continue to state your case as clearly and rationally as you can, and trust your audience to see the other guy’s boorish antics for what they are. I call it the Gamaliel approach: If it’s flawed, it will fall.
Thomas,
Yeah, more than just my eyebrows would have shot up. But I think it is unfair for you to conflate this one person’s view with “the opinion-formers of the true Left.” Should we follow the Republican belief that Obama represents the left of all left? Him being president, and opinion maker in chief, what are his thoughts on the founding of this Republic? Or would this be an instance where Obama no longer represents the views of the “true Left?” Maybe you have an example of someone more influential than this professor. Seeing that even you noticed in your class that other liberals were uncomfortable with her view, this doesn’t seem to be something that speaks for “the true Left.”
I didn’t go to Law School, but I did take International Law in my undergraduate work, and I got a B. 🙂
Firetag,
Gladly will I “blame” Democrats for that. Let the tax cuts expire. Frankly, raise the tax on the top 1% earners in this country to 50%. Seemed to work just fine under Reagan. Hell, 90% seemed to work just fine back in Eisenhower’s days.
Thomas,
“I don’t buy the initial premises, namely, that the current level of “divisiveness” is unprecedented, or that money in political campaigns is having an extraordinarily distorting effect on American politics.”
So you’re OK with spending $4B on a midterm election? Which pretty much leaves the political process in the hands of incumbents, corporations, big labor and special interests buying and selling our politicians? really? that’s OK with you?
“If the United States ever stops being “united,” it’s more likely to be for ultimately financial reasons (like a sovereign-debt crisis) than because we are too forceful in stating our opinions.”
Our opinions here, yes. Because what goes on here doesn’t matter. But in the secret meetings with big donors and special interests that take place in government buildings and the glad handing that goes on in Congress, it does matter. It’s more than just mere opinion.
Jeff,
“Which pretty much leaves the political process in the hands of incumbents…”
Wow, I thought that there was going to be a lot of incumbents kicked out this year. In the House, this will be 3 elections in a row that there are a lot of defeated incumbents. It is also interesting that the GOP money advantage in 2006 was not very helpful and that the 2010 Dem money is not projected to buy many House seats.
These quick swings in voter sentiment show me that there is not total polarization yet. Now if we can just get a presidential candidate that has the vision for a good future and then implements it.
I remember all the money spent on California’s Prop 8 back in ’08. This was at the same time our country took a huge hit with the economy. Nothing surprises me with money spent on politics.
Dan, tax rates could remain that high because state and local burdens were nowhere near what they are now. Rates like you suggest would be economic suicide in a global economy. Eisenhower didn’t have to deal with a global economy.
Jeff, nastiest one ever? Check this out!
http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/29/attack-ads-circa-1800
Heh.
Jeff, corporations have been defined by the courts as persons for quite some time. With all due respect, I think you should probably consult some more balanced resources when discussing Citizens United.
Jana,
Could you point to me where I can see what state and local tax levels were back in the 1950s?
Jana,
Thanks for pointing out the Reasons website. Actually quite funny by today’s standard. I guess all political campaigns have their nastiness to them. but, certainly, we get it 24×7 while with the campaigns in the past you could probably put down the newspaper, now it is 24×7 on TV, radio and in your home via the phone. That’s probably the biggest difference.
Jeff, you say $4 billion like that’s a big number. 😉
Seriously, though. Compare that number with other advertising budgets. We spend about $20 billion every year (as best I could find out) trying to persuade each other to buy Toyotas instead of Hondas, and vice versa. In a critical election year — in effect, a referendum on whether we want to continue a project sold as a “fundamental remaking” of American civilization — we’re spending about a fifth of that car advertising budget, which you could argue is designed to influence a far less consequential decision. (I went with the Sienna myself, but I could have lived with an Odyssey.)
“Which pretty much leaves the political process in the hands of incumbents, corporations, big labor and special interests buying and selling our politicians? really? that’s OK with you?”
Yeah, pretty much. Because I simply don’t see things that melodramatically. There are really very few effective politicians, believe it or not, who could be truly “bought.” There’s not enough NRA money in the universe to change Barbara Boxer’s views on gun control; likewise, the combined earnings of every abortion mill ever set up could not possibly have changed Rick Santorum’s position on that issue. Politicians whose convictions can be changed for the price of a campaign contribution, are not likely to be conviction politicians — and generally will not resonate.
Now, maybe you can influence a second-rate politician’s thinking on an arcane third-tier issue in a year nobody’s paying much attention to the below-the-fold issues. But he will be vulnerable in a later year (like this one) when people start paying attention.
Anyway, I’d echo el oso’s comment that the idea that this heavily-invested election has resulted in the process falling into the hands of “incumbents,” about a quarter of the present crop of which look likely to be thrown out on their ears. I tend to think, rather, that incumbents would be the ones who would favor campaign finance regulation — because they get to write the regulations. An honorable politician might approach that task in a spirit of pure selflessness, not taking the slightest occasion to entrench his own power base — and as long as we’re dreaming, I’d like a pony.
Ditto “corporations.” If corporations have such almighty political power, why do we have such a high corporate tax rate? Heck, why have one at all? It’s one of the more regressive taxes out there, taxing the income that could otherwise be paid out as dividends at the same rate, whether the stockholder is Paris Hilton or some small fry.
To the extent special-interest money does influence politics, I question whether the prohibition-style approach (which doesn’t seem to be working to well in the War on Drugs) will be effective, so long as there is a demand for political money. As long as political favor is seen as sufficiently valuable, money will be drawn to the process. I say the best response is — make political favor less valuable, by creating a government that undertakes less, and so has fewer opportunities to make it do something for people it shouldn’t.
I don’t have a TV so I never see any of the ads. I just look at the person’s website and if they can convince me that they’re a good candidate (anti-war and pro-small government) then I vote for him/her. Makes it nice for voting, no garbage to look at.
As for your other comments. There’s a reason it’s become more divisive. The more government gets into our lives and redistributes wealth the more at stake there is. Of course everyone will want to vie for the prize money. Of course, there will be bribes and all sorts of mischief. It’s common sense.
Beansdude,
“in check by finding compromise”
The way I understood it was that they were supposed to get nothing done except for the most extremely important stuff. They were originally not supposed to meet together that often.
My intelligence was greatly insulted on so many fronts this go-round that I don’t know where to begin.
The “attack” ads are fairly much standard fare, but so many here in CA sunk to new lows.
“Eliminated jobs…out for herself…” “right-wing extremist…”
Between the appeals to irrational fear, class envy, and the vague promises, I feel as if both parties consider the electoral masses to be an utter gaggle of idiots.
Of course, we Church members at times aren’t much better. I provoked a good one this Sunday when I rolled up in my rather aged diesel MB (what you get when you put a sofa on a farm tractor) sporting a “Yes on 19” bumper sticker. Unlike my other three rides, the old grey “Panzerkampfwagen” actually has big old chromed steel bumpers that double as billboards! An otherwise rather kindly older brother in my HP group saw it and about had a stroke. He just couldn’t see HOW any member in good standing, let alone a Priesthood holder, could possibly support legalizing pot! I just smiled and pointed out that I value free agency highly enough to consider rank stupidity not to be a crime. The Prophet remarked that he didn’t “control” the Saints but taught them correct principles and let them govern themselves. It amazing how some members go ballistic when we apply the counsel of JS to our politics.
Look up on YouTube a WW2 Disney video about “emotion and reason”. It’s one of Walt’s yarns to support the then war effort, and poses some very sage observations about how we can be easily swayed by emotions and appetites to do dumb things…and how cagey politicians…including the leader of a FOREIGN country, but in THIS century (20th, I’m citing a classic “Twilight Zone” reference) could easily sway public opinion to madness and destruction.
“It’s The Economy. Stupid!” has gone down the memory hole?