Admission 1: I’m a long-term political junkie, have
been since elementary school. Regardless
of who is in office, I never miss a State-of-the-Union. I’ve watched political conventions since
they’ve been broadcast on TV, some years nearly gavel to gavel. I watch presidential press conferences, major
speeches/events on C-Span or YouTube including the funerals of, among others,
Mario Cuomo and Antonin Scalia. Needless
to say, passing up a vote is never an option.
Admission 2: I haven’t seen a single presidential
debate — Democratic or Republican — in this primary election cycle. Why? I
could say watching them in this bizarre year is just too painful, and that
would be true. A lot of “ink” has been devoted
to the vitriol in both the campaign and our current politics. Some suggest how unprecedented the tone and
outlandishness. Perhaps we haven’t recently
witnessed its like, but it has all happened before. I’m reading historian William Leuchtenburg’s new
book, The American President: From
Teddy Roosevelt to Bill Clinton. At
93 he’s hard at work on the companion Washington to McKinley volume. What strikes me in the reading is how rough
and messy our politics has been throughout.
That impression was reinforced by a Charlie Rose interview with Ron Chernow,
whose biography of our first Treasury Secretary inspired the hit show Hamilton. The competitive mean-spiritedness of our idealized
Founders would have made perfect fodder for today’s cable and Twitter. That
doesn’t make what’s afoot today less disconcerting, less off putting. But what’s keeping me less
engaged isn’t nasty discourse, it's fatigue.
Back in April
2014 I posted a blog that began with these words, “The envelope was in my mailbox,
the return address: “Ready for Hillary 2016”. My immediate response: not
so much — certainly not yet. Beyond all else,” the post continued, “I am so not
ready for two and a half protracted years of presidential politics.” Indeed,
the 2014 Congressional elections were still months away, ones that seemed of
more immediate importance. I saw the
solicitation “as a distraction at the very moment when we can ill afford to
avert our attention from the immediate task at hand. Do her supporters", I asked, "not realize how
important it is to hold the Senate; are they intentionally trying to undermine
our sitting Democratic president?” For
Clinton, the campaign, albeit unannounced, was underway despite President
Obama’s being barely in year two of his second term. I’ll get back to that. We all
know the result of that lack of attention — that implied dismissal of a sitting
majority elected president.
Help me here — two and a half years? No other democracy in the world spends even a
fraction of that time in campaign mode.
Indeed, some restrict national elections to a matter of weeks. Campaigns are shorter and, yes, more citizens
vote. In an all time record year like 2008 only
57% of eligible voters cast ballots for president and that number declined
to 54% in 2012; less than half of them vote in primaries. For sure, money is a huge problem in our
politics. We spend far more on elections
than anyone else on the globe. Citizens
United was a horrible decision, but I don’t think campaign spending is the
primary problem.
The real killer is time; endless distracting and numbing months of
speeches evoking largely manufactured “news”.
To be sure, time and money are related
— it takes bundles to sustain extended campaigning, but solve the time
problem and fixing the money problem will follow. The same is true, though clearly on a smaller
scale, for congressional elections. It’s
no wonder that so little gets done in Washington when many Senators and
Congresspersons are on the road not in their seats on the floor. It’s sometimes hard to tell which is their
primary job, carrying out legislative duties or campaigning. All too often the two are indistinguishable.
It’s claimed that the current presidential campaign
is evoking considerable interest.
Perhaps that’s the case, but I wonder how many Americans really know much about
where candidates stand on substantive issues, or even if they have any coherent
policy positions. It should be
instructive that Donald Trump with the fewest, a person given to what I’d call hour-long
“tweet speeches” gets the most press. Even
if Americans had more than an infant’s attention span, and we don’t, there is
just so long that anyone can honestly spend following these endless campaigns. In fact, rather than enhancing they compromise democracy, which alone
argues for a more humanly reasonable campaign season.
But what is the real and immediate damage of endless
campaigning? It undermines
orderly governance and by extension all our interests. A prime example can be found in the political
charade surrounding the filling of a vital Supreme Court seat. Returning to my April ’14 post and that independent (if you can believe that) solicitation by Hillary supporters. I
posed the question then about the appropriateness of the timing, only a year
and a half into Obama’s four-year term.
In that context, isn’t it hard to question the Republican’s current
position that effectively his presidency is over with less than a year to go? I’m by no means suggesting that Hillary is to
blame for the current situation, certainly not purposefully so. But drawing the connection, inadvertent as it might be, is not too much of
a stretch. It is certainly a question
that I would hope she and those who put that letter in my mailbox are asking of themselves.
Of course, what Clinton and others in both parties
before her (including Obama) have done in reflects a systematic problem. If they are guilty of anything it is
following the “regular order of business” or of submitting to an unending
campaign habit that has measurable and predictable consequences. The nomination of Judge Merrick Garland is
clearly falling victim to that order. In
most places — United Kingdom, France, Germany, Israel and Canada, for example —
campaigning would still be months away.
Contending that a president or prime minister who had been elected for,
in our case, four years was no longer accorded his Constitutional power nine
months early would be both untenable, even laughable. It is also totally
inconsistent. Barack Obama can send
American troops across the globe, he can fire (one of Trumps favorite
prerogatives of office) cabinet and many other government employees, and he can
hire without consent anyone who doesn’t require congressional approval. He can declare emergencies and send aid to
victims of all manor of disaster. Of
course he can order up and fly Air Force One to Cuba and beyond. I could go on, but you get the point. Rest assured, if the Kentucky River overflows its banks or
some coalmine disaster occurs in the state, Senator McConnell
will want, indeed demand, the sitting president to exercise those powers.
Endless presidential campaigns don’t only induce my
and your fatigue, they work against exercising our civic responsibilities; they
endanger a full functioning government. While
on the campaign trial, senators absent themselves from their sworn duties and
governors from theirs for months on end.
They don’t do so without often high cost. Once in campaign mode, which sadly these days
means most of the time, every discussion and every decision is undertaken in a
political context. Will this advance my
personal or my party’s interests? Will
it lead me/us to, or keep me/us in, power?
Will it damage the “other side”?
Lot’s of questions. Note that “will it advance the public good” is not
among them.
We’re going to slug through this endless election
cycle and most probably others to follow.
What I wonder is when will we admit that it’s all too much, that the
cost, not only financial, is far too high, the risk far too great. My fatigue this year — and surely I’m not
alone — should be a wake up call. The endless campaign's impact on filling Scalia's seat should make us all awake in a cold
sweat. Time we start thinking about
breaking this most stupid “norm”. And
please don’t tell be it’s the “new normal”, the ultimate copout cliché of our time.
No comments:
Post a Comment