As I left this office this afternoon, I realized that I’d decided who I was going to vote for president. It wasn’t a decision I was happy with, obviously, but I’d hit a tipping point over the course of the day’s reading, believing that the consequences of the lesser of two evils’ shortcomings outweighed those of the somewhat-less-lesser of two evils. It just sort of came to me, and I didn’t feel the immediate shrinking back from the conclusion that I’ve felt every other time I’ve made a tentative move toward that decision over the last month or two.
I actually felt slightly tranquil, as though I’d found a position that, though not fully comfortable in, I could live with.
Then I turned on the afternoon news, heard campaign statements made today by the candidate in question, and literally shouted at the radio, “HOW THE FUCK CAN I VOTE FOR A MAN WHO SAYS CRAP LIKE THAT?!”
Oh, well. It was nice while it lasted. Maybe I should just flip a coin, send in an absentee ballot, and go camp out in a cave for the next few weeks.
You have my sympathies.
As this drags on … and on … and on and gets ever more bitter I wonder how your country will heal these wounds. The other thing I wonder is just who *has* been running the U.S. for the last few months, because, frankly, it looks to me as if a huge hunk of your president’s time and energy is focussed on being elected.
We only allow our politicians just over a month to campaign in this country. Our last election campaign started to descend into the nasty stuff you folks are enduring, but because the campaign is so short the wounds were superficial. It also forces the politicians to be concise and get their message out clearly. As a bonus, we know our prime minister is distracted from running the country for a relatively short time.
Maybe you want to think about campaign time limits?
The other thing I wonder is just who *has* been running the U.S. for the last few months, because, frankly, it looks to me as if a huge hunk of your president’s time and energy is focussed on being elected.
Sure. Ditto, of course, the focus of 2 of our US Senators’ time over the last several months.
And, of course, the focus of another 1/3 of the US Senators (up for election) and all of the Representatives.
The length (and cost, and turmoil) of each campaign cycle continues to grow, but I’m not sure that trying to set arbitrary limits is a workable answer. First, it does smack of restricting political speech, which our constitution makes a no-no. Second, it favors the incumbent, since the person in office automatically gets more attention (and can do things as an official that smack of campaigning — is that visit to state X a campaign stop or just part of their job?). Third, and associated with that, trying to get politicians to pass laws to limit politics is always unlikely, and, as campaign finance reform demonstrates, rarely effective.
Part of the problem with this campaign is that, in some significant ways, it’s been being run since (a) the contentious (“we wuz robbed”) 2000 campaign finish, and, more importantly, (b) the run-up to the war in Iraq. Both those events, esp. the latter, ratcheted up the rhetoric regarding who should be president (Bush vs. Anybody But) to what seems an unusual degree, with Kerry stepping into the Anybody But role over the last several months.
As bass-ackward as it seems, one of the best reasons I can think of to vote for Kerry is that it will mean we won’t have another four years of Dubya to be the lightning rod for further escalated rhetoric and ranting. I’m not sure we can stand that.
A few of things…
First, I like Arizona’s public finance laws that they came up with four years ago: To get public financing for your campaign you can not collect anything more then five dollars per person. You must make threshold (usually 15% of votes cast for office in last election) in signatures/$5 bills. One you make these two goals the state will finance you matching dollar for dollar with your opponent. I would love to see this on the national level.
There have been several proposals to condense the election cycle. These proposed changes usually get killed by one of the two parties or New Hampshire and Iowa. The best one I saw was for twelve weeks long campaigning prior to conventions, and one month post convention. New Hampshire and Iowa would go first (to placate their demands), and then the rest of the states would go every week five at a time from smallest electoral count to largest.
Lastly, I’m really tired of the whole money equals free speech argument, because if there is any free money just laying around, I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me. I see it as an “everybody has free speech, some just have more free speech then others” problem. Removing the money from the election cycle would seriously put a crimp in the Plutocractazation/corporatazation of our political system. Our current system is so hosed by people serving their corporate masters and lying to the people so that they can get elected again using all of the money that they gained from being good toadies.
On the plus side, I’m glad that I’m not consumed by inner termoil like Dave is.
Lastly, I’m really tired of the whole money equals free speech argument, because if there is any free money just laying around, I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me. I see it as an “everybody has free speech, some just have more free speech then others” problem.
Which, even if money were removed from the equation, would still be true. Someone who lives in a major media outlet is going to more easily get their message out than someone who lives in Podunk, Montana. Someone who can speak well and easily before a crowd is going to be heard more than someone who stammers and gets stage fright. Someone who can write well is going to get an Op-Ed piece run (and be more effective with it) than someone who can’t string three words together. Someone who is a celebrity will get more camera time endorsing candidate X than I do. Someone who is already in the public eye (e.g., an incumbant) is going to get more indirect exposure and opportunity to pseudo-campaign than someone who is not …
If I am passionate about a particular candidate, my options to get that message out are limited by any number of factors. The most effective way for me to express that might very well be a big check to a party, or the Coloradoans for choice. Limiting that check may very well reduce pandering for it by candidates (though from what I see, money always finds a way), but it may very well reduce my best means of expressing my political feelings.
Removing the money from the election cycle would seriously put a crimp in the Plutocractazation/corporatazation of our political system. Our current system is so hosed by people serving their corporate masters and lying to the people so that they can get elected again using all of the money that they gained from being good toadies.
Again, money always finds a way. The rise of 527s in this campaign cycle is an example of this — unless you want to somehow restrict *anyone* from spending more than $5 on *anything* that might be considered political expression — in which case I think you’ll find the cure worse than the disease.
On the plus side, I’m glad that I’m not consumed by inner termoil like Dave is.
I’m not losing sleep over it — yet — but it’s a real burr under my saddle. 🙂