The Republican Party as we have known it is disintegrating, and that means that the Two Party System that we have long relied upon to shape our politics is being re-formed. From a momentary, partisan perspective, depending upon whether we are Republicans or Democrats, this is either terrific news or a national tragedy. In either case, we are witnessing profound changes to the framework of American politics and government. The revolution has begun - and it’s about time.
Politicians tune their messages to obtain votes. This election season, it is clear that a substantial number of middle Americans no longer fit inside their political parties. The good news is that we are witnessing democracy in action, a shuddering of political foundations. The bad news is that we don’t know how it will all turn out, and some people are starting to panic. But political realignment is democratically healthful, and long overdue.
Understandably, until the November election, our interest is on the daily coverage of the Presidential campaign. Trump is a real and present danger and good Americans must stand up and oppose him. I am cautiously optimistic that they will do so. But regardless of how the present campaign turns out, it is likely that Trump-style politics are here to stay. He represents the political consequences of an unregulated communications industry.
Trump as President would be absolutely, unequivocally bad . But I am equally alarmed by the way that poll tallies and audience share now have at least as much influence as elections. This bothers me because the systems of collecting these data are commercial. I hold to a core belief that a ritualized voting day is the best way for the citizens of a democratic society to influence government. I am alarmed that prediction polls and audience share are measured by commercial entities to form the basis of sponsored political programming. Donald Trump is a result.
Let us peer through the retro-spectroscope. In 1934, New Dealers became alarmed over the National Broadcasting Company’s appetite for local radio outlets. They established the Federal Communications Commission to impose regulations on mergers and acquisitions in the communications industry, recognizing that public attention ought not be controlled by a commercial monopoly. The flip side of prohibiting monopoly is that it stimulates competition.
In 1996, Congress responded to complaints about the absence of cable television in unprofitable communities. They re-chartered the FCC to approve mergers and acquisitions between telephone and cable companies, because access to information is a democratic right, and because a sensible method of providing that access is to allow the companies that own the transmission networks to be blended with the companies that produce the content. Seemed like a good idea, as is the way of unintended consequences.The landscape in the communications industry is now dominated by overgrown companies competing for our attention, communications behemoths conceived by that legislation. Fox, CNN, MSBNC, are parts of larger commercial entities, companies in it for the dollars.
I am concerned by this. It doesn’t seem right that the people who decide what we ought to know have so much influence over democracy. Each of the shows called “debates” is produced and transmitted by these companies. The news, the interviews, the panel discussions, the snazzy graphics, the urgent music, the mega-expensive election coverage is bought and paid for to attract our attention. In the abstract, that doesn’t seem to be a problem. But in the real world, Donald Trump may become President of The United States of America.