With a national campaign looming...the silly season begins.
Frankly my dear, our presidential electoral processes which have been in serious decline for years now, have reached absurd lows. And we can blame a lot of it on the media. Because the media is now so expansive with thousands of radio stations; hundreds of cable channels, and of course the explosion of the internet. It is a voracious consumer of what claims to be newsworthy, but is mostly irrelevant nonsense.
The nonsense now comes in the form of breathless reporting of comments, innuendoes, statements, etc from people who arelargely irrelevant to the governance of our country, and whose opinions frankly do not matter much. The list is so extensive, one would not know where to begin – but starting with recent weeks, we now have Ted Nugent with his bizarre comments about Obama. Who the hell cares?
And Hilary Rosen dissing Ann Romney. Again, who cares? I guess Ann Romney did, and her inane reply was, to be honest, silly. Yet it is reported as though it were some great statement that will shape the course of America in the future. Then, as reported in the NY Times, others had to pile on: “…the most prominent voices in Washington weighed in, including Vice President Biden, first lady, Michelle Obama, and the president himself, who said that there is ‘no tougher job than being a mom’. This matters? I don’t think so.
Then there are the lesser voices with endorsements and commentary that may be interesting, but is not really salient to how America will be governed in the next four years. The Sarah Palins, Michele Bachmans, now Gingrich and Santroum, and of course the”celebs” and minor league pundits whose voices are heard regularly on the talk shows and elsewhere. Their opinions, if not worthless, are mostly irrelevant yet, the media cannot get enough of them. Why? To employ a double entendre: they have too much time on their hands.
In fact, at this point in what will be a critical election, the vital (presidential) voices that must be heard are Obama’s and Romney’s; and neither has been forthcoming with policy statements that will allow an informed electorate to make a sound decision. Romney has turned his attack from his fellow right wingers to a barrage of criticism of Obama – without offering intelligent or proactive programs of his own. Obama is tentative in his policy-making statements. Even then the media is again eager to nuance both candidates’ whispered comments, and statements to their supporters behind closed doors. These are not policies on which we can make judgments – they are partisan statements made to raise funds.
Which brings us to added problems with our electoral process. It is far too long, and far too expensive. No other democracy in the world even comes close to the interminable length, or insane costs of our elections, and it damages our ability to make sound choices. Margaret Thatcher stated in the English election of 1997: “Three weeks is long enough”. Similarly, in Canada, the length of election campaigns can vary, but the longest was 74 days. In Australia, upon dissolution of Parliament, writs are issued for nominations within 10 days; and the total length of the election process is generally about 68 days start to finish.
In America we will have endured almost two years of filling the airwaves with commentary and personalities that are largely political junk. And because the campaigns are so protracted, there is ample opportunity for negative campaigning – some of it of doubtful veracity. This also has a negative effect on turnout (which is traditionally low in our country) – something like “a plague on both their houses”. As a corollary, the proliferation of negative, aggressive attack ads also reduces trust in government itself (witness the 9% approval rating of our current Congress). That’s because government itself is so often demonized during the campaign.
R. Spencer Oliver is secretary general of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in the Europe Parliamentary Assembly, and has written election observations in more than 100 elections worldwide. He wrote an article about an election in Denmark, noting the differences (and advantages) in the way the Danes hold elections, and the way America does. (As a side note, the Danes had an 87% turnout).
The Danes do not allow political TV ads to be run. Oliver then points out: “By shortening the official campaign period and taking television ads out of the process, you decrease the money involved in campaigns and increase the genuine democratic debate.
“If there are no such misleading ads on the air, then less time would be wasted by pundits analyzing these ads and reporters correcting the record for a public who may take them as truth. In short, a ban on TV ads would hurt only those who make them, denying them the success they sought – to derail a campaign away from substantive issues”. Excellent advice.
By inundating ourselves with inane media commentaries, and seemingly endless campaigning, we have relegated ourselves to national elections in which it is too often said: “who cares”? Well, we should care. And, we must care if we truly want better government.