Sunday, August 21, 2011

The year was 1972

A campaign was being waged for the US Senate. Candidates in both parties made the claim that "Washington is out of touch with the people, government is too big, spending is out of control and we need a balance the budget amendment to the Constitution to restore sanity." All candidates ran hard against Washington. That was my first up close look at an election for the US Senate.

Since then I have watched every Senate race and hundreds of races for the US House. In nearly every campaign over these past 39 years, candidates run against Washington. “Send me there and I’ll straighten things out. I’ll make sure Washington listens to you.” Although nobody – until now – claimed they could reduce the price of gasoline by 50%; nobody claimed his opponent didn’t “love” America; nobody questioned the eligibility or the legitimacy of their opponent’s candidacy. It's a sign of how far the process has been allowed to deteriorate.

So, how did we get here – wallowing in this sorry state for public affairs?

It started with candidates preaching their anti-Washington venom relentlessly every two years. Contributing to the problem was – and is – a lazy electorate that doesn’t take the time to understand what is going on around them. But for the electorate to gain that ability to discern truth from fiction, political right from wrong, best interest of the nation versus best for special interests will require them to ask better questions when they go through the education system at all levels. They will no doubt encounter teachers and professors with their own biased leanings who will teach things like, “Richard Nixon was a crook, and they all become crooks if they stay too long.” Or they may teach, “Jack Kennedy stole the election in 1960 in Illinois,” or “George Bush stole the 2000 election in Florida with the help of the Supreme Court.” And both will add something like, “But of course, that is the nature of politics today. Dirty business. Don’t get too close. Expect the worse.” No wonder even intelligent persons begin as avowed cynics at the start of their understanding.

But if you don’t make an attempt to understand the process that makes a democratic republic work, and be willing to participate in it, we will not be able to keep it.

Jon Huntsman was on ABC’s This Week program and he spoke the truth to Republican leaders and Republican rank and file voters. Because he spoke the truth forcefully to his party, right wing extremists who seem to be in control of the Republican nomination will soon dismiss him from the stage.

Of all the candidates on the Red side of the aisle right now, John Huntsman gets it. He understands the urgency of the issues our nation faces. (I say “right now,” because there is still a chance George Pataki and Rudy Giuliani will get in, not to mention Sarah Palin.) Huntsman understands what this country needs and he can articulate an intelligent argument for his positions. Debates between Huntsman and Obama would be helpful to the nation and would guarantee that whoever wins in November 2012 would have a good chance of beginning his term with the political atmosphere in Washington more in tune with progress rather than stalemate or worse, marching backward to, say, 1930.

Huntsman, unfortunately for the country, will not be on the Republican ticket. Fortunately for the country, Obama will win re-election to another term.

What about the future? How can we change the process by which we select our leaders?

Start by telling candidates to stop bashing Washington or you won’t give them your support. Washington is not the enemy; Washington is us in the form of representatives we send there. So, tell candidates that line only works with stupid people and you’re not stupid. Start asking your teachers and professors to explain how America has existed this long if all politicians are crooked like Richard Nixon or amoral like Bill Clinton. Start by seeking out good people to run for office and get behind them with your time and energy AND your money so that large donors do not have as much influence as they once did. And slowly you will begin to strengthen our electoral process. You can do it – and you must.


39 years is long enough to listen to candidates use the same old canards to manipulate us, isn't it?

No comments: