Had to wonder: Does it really have to be about the money? I witnessed countless TV commercials in the last election cycle trying to convince me one by one that Charlie Crist and Rick Scott are two different people. That's where all the money went, and it added very little to the discussion. There didn't seem to be much of a difference at all between the two candidates. In that same race, the best candidate was a guy named Adrian Wyllie. In one poll, only 8% of those polled had even heard of him, yet 7% thought he was the best candidate. Why was it so hard for his message to get out?
I recently came across an essay by Mark Brandley, who concludes:
... why are scoundrels successful in the political arena? Analyzing the nature of an election provides us with an answer. In order to win an election, candidates need to offer their supporters other people's wealth, and candidates must convince their supporters to vote in spite of the fact that individual votes will not affect the election. Accomplishing these two goals requires deception. Therefore, candidates who are willing to violate property rights — to steal — and be deceptive have an advantage over candidates with stronger moral convictions. So of course elected officials are corrupt. Candidates with moral integrity are at a severe disadvantage in the political sphere. Do not put your hope in political solutions --
The essay was written just over four years ago, and once again, the season is well underway. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney were taking turns standing in the establishment money machine; while other candidates are waiting for their turn in the grab shack.
All this money flying around doesn't help the information process, however.
The local TV stations rely on the money machine for their fall commercial spot sells, and therefore, the networks who depend on them do not want to do anything that would accidentally clarify the debate. No, No, No. After all, if there was a real difference between the two candidates, the debate would end prematurely. Keeping them close keeps the money flowing.
What if it weren't about the money? Freedom of speech issues aside, what if the TV spot buys had no real consequence? What if there were enough of a difference among the candidates that advertising was superfluous? Modern political theory requires that the politicians go after the middle of the road; i.e., to the marginal voter. And since both politicians want that same unprincipled voter, they can sway an election on the stupidest of promises.
My personal way of dealing with it is that I no longer vote for politicians. I will only vote for statesmen. And since all Republicans and Democrats are by their nature politicians, I simply don't vote for them any more. It doesn't have to be about the money; especially if each of us take 15 minutes to learn about the candidates on our own.
I can safely navigate through TV commercials, since they are all for the status quo candidates and my DVR discriminates against all TV commercials anyway. The next thing to do is to become informed by the real candidates; the possible statesmen; the ones you will not regret voting for. Only then will voting be a worthwhile activity again.
.
We're doing this wrong, that has to be obvious. The solution is to make it not about the money.
