Give Me A Tribune

I never realized how much real life politics I was experiencing in elementary and secondary school. Then, as now, we voted for our leaders on the basis of intangibles--likability, intelligence, speaking ability, humor. Then as now we pitted intelligence vs. popularity. Popularity was like a "secret ingredient" barbecue sauce--you knew what it was even if you didn't know what was in it.

In school, you voted against candidates because of how they smiled or talked, or out of envy, or because you wanted to hurt them in a symbolic way. And you voted for their opponents because you liked what they carried in their lunch-bags-- Fritos and Hostess snowballs--or because they possessed a special homespun gift, like stuffing a whole cupcake in their mouths or sticking a carrot stick up their noses. When the media analyzes and dissects the candidates they focus on similar matters-- a smile, a laugh, a voice, a cry, a loss of temper, a personality flaw.

It makes one wonder what public office means to people. Do we--should we--care how our presidents look, sound, laugh, or tell a joke? If a president needed to preside over a late night talk show, such considerations would be germane. But we are unlikely to see enough of our president to care how pleasant, witty or charming he or she is. All we should care about is what they can do to help or hurt us, and how they will manage our government. Admittedly, much of this is speculative so we focus on what we sense--mannerisms, hair, speech patterns. We may have stopped trying to process the content of their ideas and backgrounds, so we play a game we know much better--high school politics--where the formula is simple--Get a laugh, win an election.

Voters have trouble voting on substance because the weight and nature of substantial matters change over time--and candidates change with them. Four months ago the Iraq War and immigration were the issues that mattered most and every candidate had a plan for dealing with them. No sooner did the electorate digest these positions than the economy became the primary issue on everyone's minds. So the candidates must contort themselves and become economic doctors.

Vagaries of historical circumstance can result in stunning political reversals of fortune. Two great examples of this are with us today. In the summer of 2001, Rudolf Giuliani and George Bush each experienced political stagnation. New York's mayor was a lame-duck whose enemies had circled to discredit his policies and ridicule his family background (eg. his late father's jail record and chronic constipation) while the newly-elected president had given many constituents ample reason to believe that the Florida chads should have been recounted in his opponent's favor. But 9/11 turned Giuliani into a hero and Bush into the stalwart commander-in-chief who would be re-elected as if to spite our enemies abroad.

The most pernicious affront to substance in the electoral process are the media. Rather than play the role of the fourth estate, informing us about the most important issues and the candidates' positions, the media sell trumped-up controversies to attract our prurient interests. They also assess which candidates are serious and which ones are wasting everyone's time, who debates and who should quit the race. The criteria on which the media base these evaluations are not candidates' virtues, vices, backgrounds, ideas. There is only one criterion for seriousness as far as they are concerned--how much campaign money the candidates raise.

It is a self-serving benchmark since the money candidates raise will be plowed into campaign commercials to pad the media's bottom line. In elementary school and high school, any serious candidate for class or school office knew the value of having colorful posters, a catchy tag-line and campaign buttons--even if they were made of construction paper. Media mattered even then. The 2008 professional political equivalent is the paid political advertisement, a costly upgrade. The total cost of media spending on all political campaigns will be $2.5 billion for this election year, as opposed to $.6 billion in 2004. Presidential candidates are expected to have more than $100 million in their coffers. When the media tell us that a candidate is not serious because he does not have $100 million in campaign funds they are speaking for their own interests as if to say, "Money talks. BS walks." For the media "serious" signifies a candidate's ability to serve the media's needs.

What should gall the American voter is that we are told that we should vote because it is a right and privilege. Where is the privilege in voting for one of two candidates who has received money from special interests and been certified as worthy by a media that reaps enormous profit from the same candidates' capacity to raise capital? We are enjoined to vote for candidates who are good for media and for special interests. What do we gain beyond the vain hope that at the end of the day these multinational moguls will do a good deed for us?

Without doubt I expect more from government and the political process than they can ever give. My critique is out of step with history. Have governments ever been better than the one we have? Governments are "best which govern least" because they have usually been leviathans which ordinary people had reason to fear and depise. Governments have waged war and imposed taxes, killing sons and expropriating property and income. They have often been charged with two constructive functions, to protect their people from enemies and rescue them in catastrophes. When they failed to provide these services government collapsed (see "Mandate of Heaven", Louis XVI, Herbert Hoover, etc.)

For many years I have seen a parallel between Rome and America--two nations built on engineering, commerce, war, and conquest. Rome loved gladiators and Americans love football. In fact, we are as so enamored of blood sport competition and its pungent vernacular that we have injected them into most of our institutions, including law, business, and politics. We are a society of adrenaline and sleeping pills, of great roads and tawdry spectacles. The chariot race has been worked into the daily commute and SUVs are the chariots.

If we are indeed 21st century Romans staring at our own decline let us at least have our tribunes--politicians who represent common people's interests and address our problems. Clearly the $100 million dollar politicians cannot be counted on to do this for us. We need a system to elect popular ombudsmen who set the common peoples' agenda and ensure that it stays hoisted in the public conscientiousness and in the bought politicians' faces. Our tribunes would have no other role or obligation than to ensure that politicians, media, and the electorate never forget when the peoples' interests are forgotten or violated, and to muster public opinion to have them upheld.

Until our political system and government incorporate authentic political advocates for the common people, the vast majority of citizens will have no other role in our government but to pay taxes, give up sons and daughters to war, and make our system look democratic to the world by voting in empty popularity contests, bloodless gladiatorials, between candidates of like persuasion and support. Our republic will persist as an oligarchy of powerful individuals, institutions and interest groups collaborating on a multimedia series titled "American Political Elections."

The United States was founded upon such slogans as "No taxation without representation." We could be chanting the same mantra. Our tax codes do not represent the interests of the vast majority on which this democracy claims to be based. Until the common people receive true representation and legitimate public advocacy, we should refuse to participate in the charade titled "Election Day."