So I assume everyone has heard about how Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (2008 presidential candidates) were caught on tape talking about how they want and were planning on getting the “trivial” candidates off the debating circuit.
Click here
My response, like so many of my political conscious friends—was one of relief because it explicitly made clear what we already new; that is, political campaigning is purely about winning: obvious. The problem is this big-money-high-pressure-winner-takes-all system leads to deceit.
I would not say that the candidates are to blame. The political process encourages this type of behavior. In order for a politician to win an election she/he must “act,” so to speak. What is important is appearance and slogans, not truth.
I should be more upset at Hillary and Edwards but I’m not because they are doing exactly what it takes to win: there playing the game.
In order to change the “players” we must change the rules of the game.
2 comments:
In all seriousness they do need to start lowering the amount of candidates sooner. Same thing with republicans, because the last two elections show just how much more time each candidate could have used to make a difference when it came down to Bush and Kerry.
Though I also enjoy some of these more trivial candidates place in elections. Look, everyone knows Al Sharpton isn't going to win, and he knows that as well. He uses the elections as a platform to make sure candidates are concerned with some of the issues that Americans are truly concerned with. On the republican side we’re seeing Mormons run for office which is a first I believe, and that’s a big deal because while he may not get far, he’s moving themselves back into mainstream America and that’s important to people who share that faith. Otherwise this election will be a 1-2 issue election and if it's a 1 issue election (being 9/11) then Giuliani is going to win and the country is going to shit.
In the end, I think it’s great because Clinton and Edwards want to start throwing punches at some of these Republicans instead of fighting with fellow Democrats. They’ve been there and done that and want to get out there and get this thing started. I love the enthusiasm.
Well, of course politicians try to win; the investment in time, effort and money is extremely high. I am not clear what you are referring to in this context by "deceit". If by "deceit" you mean maintaining the appearance of party unity, then certainly, the system breeds it. We do not run on a proportional representation system of voting and thus there is relatively little room for minority interests to maneuver unless they ally themselves with the plurality, but because you don't need large margins to win in a winner-takes-all system, the big tent parties need to generate as much support as they can even from minority interests, which translates into generating a facade of unity, which in turn leads to two-party systems, an insight that is known as Duverger's Law.
For Clinton and Edwards, their cynical statements may reflect one or more of the following: 1.) an impatience with the process; 2.) a dismissal of other candidates' positions; 3.) a fear that the continued divisions within the Democratic Party generate an opportunity cost of not being able to focus on the common enemy of the Republican Party, thereby splitting the vote a la Ralph Nader in the 2004 election.
It's not pretty, but we have to think carefully about changing the system and what that entails. If we switch to a multiparty system, we might find ourselves with more accurate representation, but I wonder if we might not also find ourselves faced with more posturing and grandstanding by minority parties with narrower interest ranges who are seeking to put issues on the agenda where they will inevitably fail, potentially making an already slow system even more inefficient or worse, forestalling debate on issues with broader appeal. Such issues are not managed within the party but are more likely to be hashed out on the floor. Perhaps that is the price to be paid for proportional representation, but nevertheless the tradeoff (and others) are something to consider.
Post a Comment