Opinion:

The Democratic Process Has Been Victimized By Political Handlers 

Debate And Discussion Set Aside In Favor Of Polarization Of Thought

by Johnny Gunn

There are so many things wrong with today's politics that it is difficult to take one small part and make a comprehensible opinion piece out of it, but we'll try.  Politicians are at trial for allowing themselves to be taken in by sleaze-balls who can only offer money and run like hell when the going gets rough.  Politicians are being charged but not at trial yet for taking advantage of the trust thrust upon them by way of the ballot.  Politicians are working overtime to keep us from knowing what our government is doing, even calling it a client relationship that keeps them from being open and honest.

Those are all real problems that need serious discussion, but there is another and that one has to do with our perception of politics.  There is a trend that has developed over the last 20 years that needs discussion.  It's called polarization.  It's almost impossible to hold a conversation or discussion over a current affairs question without first describing it in deep and structured political terms.  Nothing exists today without it being "conservative," "neo-conservative," "religious right," "liberal," or "ultra liberal."  And if one person is on the other side, then the word conspiracy must come into play.

It seems that today a personal ethical failure must be also part of the problem of that person's basic political philosophy.  One can't simply become a sleaze bag accepting bribes and lap dances; one has to be either a democrat sleaze bag or republican sleaze bag.  One can't discuss international relations without condemning an entire political party or current administration regardless of what party is holding an edge at the time.

Where did this come from?  Mostly I think we have to go back and put the blame squarely on the shoulders of advertising agencies, political kingmakers that represent people with no depth or agenda, and television advertising in which nothing is said, but a pretty smile is always seen.  Little catch phrases that mean nothing pass for political philosophy, and if someone disagrees the best answer is character assassination.  There has always been mud fights in American politics, that's not what this discussion is about, but rather how Joe and Mary Citizen can't have an open discussion about a political question without it becoming a rage featuring horrible consequences.

Politicians are kept from the public on purpose.  They might actually say something.  So-called political handlers issue innocuous press releases that are gobbled up by a press corps that is rarely allowed to actually speak with a candidate, and it is we-the-people that are left out.  No longer do candidates speak in public forums or at public gatherings.  You might see them riding in a parade or handing out pamphlets at a political convention, but you rarely will be able to actually create a dialog.

Coupled with advertising that is designed to polarize the electorate, we only know what a few people want us to know.  This is exactly how we end up with sleaze bags representing us on boards, commissions, councils, legislatures, and congresses.  We only know what money will buy from an advertising agency.  Advertising then turns the opposition into something evil instead of something that needs to be discussed.  Because we think the opposition is evil we are unwilling to have an open debate over its possible good qualities.  Thus, polarization.

We can't look at a person who might have many good qualities and possibly a few bad qualities and discuss those.  We have become polarized to the extent that we must hate that person completely.  We either take the person wholly and not discuss possible defects or hate the person wholly and not debate the person's positive attributes.  The same can be said for programs and ideas.  They are either totally accepted or totally rejected, never allowed to be debated into a program that both sides can accept.

A perfect example of this is the recent Abramoff fiasco in Washington.  The Senate Democrat leader, Nevada Senator Harry Reid immediately condemned the entire Republican Party for being involved.  That left no room for any kind of discussion.  Nevada Controller Kathy Augustine committed crimes for which she was found guilty, fined, and censured, and many believe it happened because she is a Republican.  The Republican controlled Nevada State Senate didn't help matters by attempting to sweep the issue under the rug.  But what has happened since is where the issue comes to a head.  To discuss the issue is all but impossible because the issue is political instead of individual.

Ms Augustine did wrong, not because she is a Republican but because she had a lapse in personal ethics.  The issue itself should have been controlled by the Attorney General and Secretary of State and never allowed to become a political question.  A failure at that level brought out the politician in everyone.  Had the issue gone to criminal proceedings, there would be little discussion today.  Sandoval and Heller allowed the issue to become mired in politics.  And we are left to watch all sides wallow in mud.

Personally I would like to go back to the era where someone that wishes to represent me gets on the steps of the courthouse or mounts the bar in a saloon and tells me why he or she wishes to represent me.  That can't be done in a 30-second TV commercial.  I want to ask the hard questions but if the candidate is never available in public, I can't.  Imagine looking directly into the eyes of someone and recognizing that they are being sincere in their quest.  Imagine holding the hand of the candidate and saying something to the effect, you want to be governor, why?

Candidates don't speak from the heart; they speak from the pocketbook of handlers today.  I want to go to the park on a Sunday and hear candidates speak from their heart.  Bands playing, balloons and bunting waving in the breeze, and candidates orating.

Yes, dear heart, I'm a dinosaur in every respect, but I want to go back to the time I felt comfortable voting for someone, not someone's public relations expert.  If you are a candidate how about planning some rallies for the public not for a select group, how about making your own thoughts known, not your handler's by way of a safe TV commercial.  There are a number of dinosaurs that would find their way to your rally.

•••

_________________________

Cartoon by Thomas Nast, April 12, 1874