With Labor Day behind us and elections less than a week away, the so-called "silly season" has been upon for a while. In this season of silliness, American-style democracy turns into a three ring circus, the likes of which would make America's premier showman and huckster P.T. Barnum envious.
In the two plus months between the start of business as usual and Election Day, which lands this year on November 7, elected officials, their respective party organizations and partisan amigos working in league with sympathetic special-interest hatchet groups that are increasingly fueled with obscure political contributions, are positioning for the upcoming cut-throat battle to win control of federal and state government - and the reassignment of its lucrative stream of tax dollars to their own interests.
Politicians and their partisan acolytes scoff at election season in the Divided States of America as merely an opportunity for political canards to bamboozle voters with flamboyant and misleading showmanship, not an honest and accurate discussion of the nation's most pressing issues, which constitute the core of our form of democracy.
Political candidates and their handlers tell voters to pay no attention to what they hear or see, much like the admonition given by the wizard to Dorothy and her friends to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
As explained by various observers, the use of the term dates to the end of the 19th century and is still listed in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Primarily associated with electioneering in America, the United Kingdom and Australia, a compact definition of silly season characterizes it as a period "typified by the emergence of frivolous news stories in the media. A side effect of stirring up the public in this manner comes when an authentic story is dismissed as a prank or when a superfluous story is taken as legitimate, according to an Internet posting on the subject.
You would think that going to the polls to cast your vote, a process American prides itself so much on that it has decided to spread it by force to other countries, would be treated with the gravitas and respect it demands. But downgrading democracy to a season of silliness argues against such treatment.
Moreover, for a process hallowed by the deaths of American troops in the nation's 230-year history, you would think that elected officials, who make their living from it, would want to laud its importance and encourage more civic participation in it by citizens. Instead, they label any public discourse that is not in lock step with their views or that shines a dark light on them, antics and utterances that only take place during the silly season.
Americans seem weary of a war whose purpose has changed as often as the colors of a chameleon forced to move among different flora. From the initial need to de-fang a dangerous dictator before he blows us up with nuclear weapons he only dreamed of having to the current excuse of spreading American-style democracy throughout the Middle East with military might, the nation's democracy-fatigued voters are again being assailed with a battery of outlandish messages, which only fortify the appearance that electoral campaigning, not to be trusted, is dishonest, mean spirited and false.
America's control of the election process by partisan parties is unique among the world's 117 democracies, according to an Ohio State University history professor. But compared to countries or regions ruled by religious clerics for centuries where civic participation is denied, its even sadder to think that our great democracy is run so crassly and with such disrespect.
The sum total of denigrating democracy, which should come as no surprise to anyone, is contained in a recent survey on the attitudes of Midwesterners to their government. The main message from a recently released survey about the level of trust that Midwesterners have for state government and reform, is that they generally don't trust state government to do what is right.
Midwesterners believe political and government reforms will make elected officials more responsive on key issues such as education, health care and jobs, according to a landmark study revealed by the Joyce foundation of Chicago, which supports efforts to protect the natural environment of the great lakes, to reduce poverty and violence in the region, and to ensure that its people have access to good schools, decent jobs, and a diverse and thriving culture.
Moreover, the report showed they are motivated to change the status quo over real concerns about the influence of money in politics ranks on a par with concerns about schools, taxes and the economy.
The study focused on attitudes toward political reform in five Midwestern states, most of which are seen as key electoral battlegrounds in presidential elections that include Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois and Minnesota.
Lawrence Hansen, Vice President, Joyce Foundation, explained why the poll was commissioned. There is a lot of hand-wringing these days about the health of the country's democratic institutions, he said in a prepared statement. Using syndicated columnist Neal Pierce, who writes on urban issues, to illustrate his point, Hansen quoted the columnist saying, "American democracy, once the wonder of the world, is working about as well as the levees around New Orleans." Hansen said Pierce is among a growing number of scholars, political practitioners, journalists, and ordinary citizens who are sounding alarms about the political system's mounting shortcomings--nearly all of which are playing out in one form or another in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.
At a glance, Ohio, the state whose survey respondents had the lowest opinion of their state government, said concerns over money and corruption in government are now on par with issues such as health care, schools and the economy. Not only do Ohio residents believe the influence of money in politics has become an obstacle to action on key issues, the reported detailed, but they also believe it is prohibiting good candidates from running for office.
Ohio Citizen Action, an Ohio based good government watchdog, performed the in-state survey for the Joyce Foundation.
However, much like their fellow Midwesterners, Ohio residents haven't thrown in the towel yet. The survey revealed that Ohioans value an honest and accountable government and support reforms to change the climate, even though they turned down a chance in 2005 to pass five constitutional reforms that were designed to re-instill confidence in a system that is now the poster child for corruption and insider dealing among states.
Large majorities back specific judicial, special interest, and campaign finance initiatives, the report said, adding that 70 percent of Ohio residents believe prohibiting judges from taking contributions from interests that may have cases in their courts would make a big difference.
Ohioans, who say they're concerned about making state government work better, when asked how often they expect state government to do "what is right," 69 percent of Ohioans said "never" or only "some of the time," while only 30 percent said "always" or "most of the time."
Additionally, 74 percent of Ohio residents believe that "unless we limit the influence of money in government, elected officials will not be able to keep their promises on issues that are important to people like me." 68 percent of Ohio residents feel that candidates who could represent them do not run for office because they do not have the money to win. 41 percent of Ohio residents "strongly agreed."
But amid all the negativity brought to light by the survey, Ohio citizens say they remain "engaged and are not giving up..." To that end, 67 percent of Ohio residents disagreed with the statement that "corruption in government will always be a problem, so trying to fix it will not make much difference."
Catherine Turcer of the Ohio Citizen Action Fund and Linda Lalley and Carol Gibson from the Ohio League of Women Voters, whose written comments are available on the organization's website, said they "hope these survey results send a strong message to those who think that Ohio residents don't care about political and government reform." They said that the overall level of concern about money and dishonesty in state government tell us "Ohio has had enough of business as usual," and more importantly, "Ohioans want change and support common sense measures that would help clean up government.
Frank Rich is a former theater critic for The New York Times whose stinging op-ed columns about how the Bush administration manufactured stories that falsely justified a rush to war and how it has intimidated powerhouse news groups, even of the might of the Times, to lap up the falsehoods without question has lead to the publishing of his latest opus on his thesis of why politics has been hijacked by the entertainment industry. In his newest book, titled "THE GREATEST STORY EVER SOLD: The Decline and Fall of Truth From 9/11 to Katrina," published by Penguin Press, Rich makes a strong, water-tight case about why so much blurring of the lines between politics and show business, as analyzed in a book review by Ian Buruma, a Times book reviewer.
Rich, Buruma tells us, says this is not a unique phenomenon and points to national leaders such as Italian media-mogul and prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, Ronald Reagan, an actor turned governor then president and Lyndon B. Johnson, a powerful Texan who took the country to war in Vietnam. Rich makes the point that show business has always been an essential part of ruling people, especially when going to war.
Buruma says Rich's subject is the creation of false reality and says "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" is not about policies, or geopolitical analysis but about the duplicitous efforts of the likes of Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, and Bush himself to manipulate public fear and wartime patriotism to win elections.
As America moves into the weeks before the midterm elections, it now seems as though the silly season has spread its rule from the months and weeks before elections to the entire year, as America's two warring parties try to convince a skeptical, often out of touch voting populace with stories so provocative as to be nearly criminal in the disservice they do to voters who say they have less and less respect or trust in their elected public officials.
Let's end with this gem that confirms the points issued above. In an article titled "Patience, silly season almost over," the authors said this:
Because we work for a corporation that owns TV stations, and because those stations are raking in gobs of money from political advertising, we sure are glad, by golly, that the election season is in full swing. Candor, however, requires us to confess that we've even more glad for the invention of the television remote and, more recently, DVR.
We make no claims as political scientists, but we wonder how much of this orgy of spending is money well spent. (The Ohio governor's race, which most analysts believe hasn't been close in a long, long time, could top $27 million alone.) How many of us actually sit through a TV commercial? Particularly an attack ad, which in most high-profile races seems to be the only type that's airing these days. Oh, well. It will all be over...