Oct 28, 2004
What Our Politics Could Be
As I resident of solidly blue-state Maryland I have been spared the whips and scourge of this most negative and empty of presidential campaigns: the incessant thrum of the thirty-second ad, the drone of the unchanging stump speech, and the screech of charges and countercharges.
Nothing better highlights the tragedy of American politics that voters prefer to be out of the line of fire in a crucial presidential campaign. Why hasn’t debate over the great issues of our time thrilled and inspired voters? The problem with our democracy is not just flawed candidates, but systematic flaws in our election campaigns.
Nothing changes from one election to the next in America, regardless of the mix of candidates. That’s because the media, the candidates, the pollsters, and the consultants are codependent on the false idea that elections are exercises in manipulating voters, giving us negative campaigns and scripted, programmed candidates. The typical effect of the two rival campaigns has been to cancel each other out, with voters discounting as political all claims, charges, and countercharges.
Ironically, the peanut politics of this campaign benefits neither candidate. Kerry’s utterly conventional take-no-risks campaign may back him into the White House through bad news visited on the Bush administration. But he could have done so much more to help his own cause. Kerry needed to be more than an energized version of Michael Dukakis, who infamously said, on his way to becoming a footnote to history, that the 1988 campaign against George Bush Senior was “about competence, not ideology.” If you yearn to be a manager, apply at McDonald’s.
Kerry should have fired the hucksters – the admen, pollsters, and consultants who debase our politics – torn up the script and spoken directly from the heart to the American people. He should have transformed the campaign into a clash of ideas, actively leading the public rather than following the polls and tying issues together in unifying themes that express a compelling vision of the nation’s future.
A transformed Kerry campaign would have taken some issues and made them his own, perhaps by following the Ross Perot model of buying blocks of television time and talking directly to the American people. Imagine a discussion of energy and environmental policy that explained how Bush’s plans force us into perpetual dependence on the oil companies and fossil fuels, drive us into wars for oil in the Middle East, and threaten the survival of our environment. Imagine if Kerry had announced a national goal of reducing fossil fuel dependence by 50 percent in twenty years, quoting John F. Kennedy, when he said, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Imagine …
The empty, negative campaign also ill serves President Bush, who may have to govern for another four years. To do so, he’ll need the cooperation of Democrats, given that the House and Senate will continue to be closely divided between the parties.
Bush has failed to use the campaign for setting up a second administration. Instead, his negative campaign only drives a wedge between the president and the opposition – as it did for his father George H. W. Bush after the corrosive campaign of 1988. If Bush wins, he’s likely to face a hellish four years.
Critics say that Americans get the politics they deserve. Not so. Today we get the sorry politics that a small band of political hucksters think we deserve. We still await candidates with the courage and wisdom to give us something more.
Nothing better highlights the tragedy of American politics that voters prefer to be out of the line of fire in a crucial presidential campaign. Why hasn’t debate over the great issues of our time thrilled and inspired voters? The problem with our democracy is not just flawed candidates, but systematic flaws in our election campaigns.
Nothing changes from one election to the next in America, regardless of the mix of candidates. That’s because the media, the candidates, the pollsters, and the consultants are codependent on the false idea that elections are exercises in manipulating voters, giving us negative campaigns and scripted, programmed candidates. The typical effect of the two rival campaigns has been to cancel each other out, with voters discounting as political all claims, charges, and countercharges.
Ironically, the peanut politics of this campaign benefits neither candidate. Kerry’s utterly conventional take-no-risks campaign may back him into the White House through bad news visited on the Bush administration. But he could have done so much more to help his own cause. Kerry needed to be more than an energized version of Michael Dukakis, who infamously said, on his way to becoming a footnote to history, that the 1988 campaign against George Bush Senior was “about competence, not ideology.” If you yearn to be a manager, apply at McDonald’s.
Kerry should have fired the hucksters – the admen, pollsters, and consultants who debase our politics – torn up the script and spoken directly from the heart to the American people. He should have transformed the campaign into a clash of ideas, actively leading the public rather than following the polls and tying issues together in unifying themes that express a compelling vision of the nation’s future.
A transformed Kerry campaign would have taken some issues and made them his own, perhaps by following the Ross Perot model of buying blocks of television time and talking directly to the American people. Imagine a discussion of energy and environmental policy that explained how Bush’s plans force us into perpetual dependence on the oil companies and fossil fuels, drive us into wars for oil in the Middle East, and threaten the survival of our environment. Imagine if Kerry had announced a national goal of reducing fossil fuel dependence by 50 percent in twenty years, quoting John F. Kennedy, when he said, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Imagine …
The empty, negative campaign also ill serves President Bush, who may have to govern for another four years. To do so, he’ll need the cooperation of Democrats, given that the House and Senate will continue to be closely divided between the parties.
Bush has failed to use the campaign for setting up a second administration. Instead, his negative campaign only drives a wedge between the president and the opposition – as it did for his father George H. W. Bush after the corrosive campaign of 1988. If Bush wins, he’s likely to face a hellish four years.
Critics say that Americans get the politics they deserve. Not so. Today we get the sorry politics that a small band of political hucksters think we deserve. We still await candidates with the courage and wisdom to give us something more.