It is a messy process, they say, and “they” are right, it really is messy. And it has probably gotten messier more recently because our communications are more potent, and more pervasive; there is more money sloshing around out there willing to pay for power and influence; and because it lasts so much longer, or seems to.
But why does it have to be messy? It is the nature of the beast; democracy (and its republican representative counterpart) seems to bring the worst out in us. But wiser heads suggest that, since we all have our own opinions – and need to if democratic representation is to work – there will be differences in those opinions as to who should represent and how he should do it, and let’s face it, a bunch of selfishness is part of the equation. So as voters express their opinions, there is bound to be emotion stirred up, and anger displayed; it is after all a competition and we really are competitive.
I have two concerns though, on what I see as a trend. One is negative campaigning, by both contestants and the adoring, or not so adoring, media, which, clearly, has a lot of influence – and always has had for that matter. But, I have been told repeatedly, negative campaigning works; we remember bad much more thoroughly than we remember good, even when it’s not true. The second is an off shoot of the first and it is that we seem to be having trouble staying with issues – perhaps because we really don’t understand them. And what that leaves is character; but that returns us to the first since negative character attacks trump positive character presentation. To wit we are not much concerned with good character but jump all over what we perceive as bad character.
And that, being lose/lose leads to another offshoot: qualifications and ability. For whatever reason, and I suspect that it is a long growing liberal trend (classical liberal not the political liberal of today) that leans toward the belief that we are all basically the same under the skin, same wants, same expectations, same rights and should therefore be viewed in that light. Which, unfortunately, means that those that get ahead must be doing something underhanded and should be censored. How else could they be more successful than we?
Interesting, because we certainly don’t use the same criteria to select a plumber or a cabinet maker; nor certainly an athlete, actor or singer. Does that mean we are willing to invest our trust in a failure? Would we want to have our representative a homeless drug dependent drop-out if he were likable and seems to understand what it is like to be in our shoes? Ok, that is extreme, but it suggests something, and that is that we have little appreciation for what it takes to be a part of running a nation. They are all crooks, I hear often. No. they are not all crooks. They are stupid and corrupt. No, they are not that either. They are, however, guilty of being human and sharing the same foibles as the rest of us; some, of course. more than others. They succumb to temptation; yes, they do. They should represent THE PEOPLE who have elected them. Ah, that’s a good one; and what might that be? We can’t agree on much of anything, so which loud bellyache should they respond to? Another ahhh; they will respond to the most influential. Corruption? Because they are reduced to begging – continually – for money to support their campaigns? Look at the circular irony of all this. Think of our reaction if someone financed his own campaign with his own money; now think of someone who has no money and depends on contributions to conduct a campaign. We are very judgmental, particularly when someone is different than we would have him be; which is what? A saint? No, we’d find some way to tear him apart too.
So, the democratic process of electing leaders is messy, and it is messy because each of us has very strong feelings about things that become important to us, what we think, what we feel, what we want, what we expect and how we vote. So why, pray tell, do we think ours is better than other forms of government? Because other forms of government leave us with a single opinion: that of the leader, however selected. Our way takes all those opinions, shakes them up and spits out TEMPORARY leaders who can be replaced without a revolution. Yes, messy. And you have a better solution?
