Why Americans Lose Elections
Tags: Money In Elections, Politics

Michael Bloomberg, billionaire, has spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars on political advertising in the last three months for what amounts to a vanity run for the presidency. Tom Steyer, billionaire, has spent $200 million. That’s half-a-billion dollars of spending by two oligarchs who have absolutely nothing in common with the rest of America. And that’s just the beginning. Bloomberg, in particular, seems willing to spend whatever it takes in an attempt to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. After the Iowa caucuses, Bloomberg vowed to double his spending.

Donald Trump intends to spend $1 billion in his bid to be reelected. Of course, it won’t be his money.

This is not how a democracy should work. This is how you kill a democracy, and ours is already ailing. They are attempting to buy the presidency, usurping traditions, processes, and values, and that tells you everything you need to know about their characters. They may be less oafish than Trump, but they’re cut from the same mold: if they want something, they buy it, societal values or harm be damned.

Frankly, if they insist on spending vast sums of money on Democratic Party politics, they should at least put it to good use (until we can make it illegal to do so). In 2020, rather than running for president, Bloomberg and Steyer should join together to help defeat Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators, 22 of whom are up for reelection, and several of whom are vulnerable. That, at least, would be a public service.

But, really, we need legislation to nullify Citizens United and to prevent obscene levels of private expenditure. Bloomberg and Steyer are cancers on the body politic. We need serious reform.

We need to dismantle the Electoral College. We need to end partisan gerrymandering of House districts. We need shorter elections. We need term limits. We need a robust recall mechanism that includes the judicial branch.

We need mandatory public funding of elections for all federal offices (no opting out, as Obama did when broke his promise to abide by federal financing rules). Money is a distraction, a short cut to “participation” in an election.

Presidential campaigns, including caucuses and primaries, should begin three months before a party’s national convention.

All political parties that have been in existence four years prior to a presidential election will be guaranteed ballot access and federal funding.

Some form of proportional representation should be applied to legislative branch election results, because proportional representation is fairer and more democratic than our current winner take all system. It may also help blunt the power of House and Senate leaders.

Right now, you can sit at home, scan a few websites or newspapers, respond to one or two of the blizzard of fundraising emails and phone calls, vote, and feel satisfied that you’ve dutifully participated in the most serious — the most sacred — obligation of anyone living in a democracy. In fact, you’ve done nothing but delude yourself, because democracy requires relationships and conversations for which dollars are a poor substitute.

Candidates crow about their quarterly FEC filings as if they were a sign of virtue. It’s assumed that voters will engage in a thoughtful examination of a candidate’s policy proposals, that they will have discussions with friends and neighbors about domestic and foreign policies, before donating money to a candidate, but there’s actually no evidence of that. Rather, political discussions are considered divisive and impolite, with the potential to ruin Thanksgiving meals and cause other great tragedies. “We can’t have four for bridge,” Mary sniffed, “because Sally is offended that Terri is voting Republican.”

Instead of analysis and discussion, voters seem to have a vague idea of a candidate’s policy proposals and choose to support (or not) a candidate based on amorphous qualities. These include likeability (“he’s a regular guy”), electability (no one knows what that means if money is removed from the equation), appearance/age, speaking style, enthusiasm, or “he/she is someone I’d enjoy having a beer with.” Call it the “gut” approach to politics: if he/she “feels” right, I’ll vote for them, no serious engagement required.

This is why tax breaks go to the one percent and not to everyone else. This is why we don’t have universal health care. This is why we’ve been at war for 18 years (hint: the one percent get richer when we’re at war). The one percent pay attention to policy and politicians; the 99 percent does not. The one percent get what they want, the 99 percent do not.

More frighteningly, in recent years the criteria motivating around 40 percent of the electorate is not universal health care, better paying jobs, or even national defense. The sole criteria for many voters seems to be “he/she is afraid of/hates the same people I’m afraid of and hate. He/she is rhetorically aggressive and willing to flout social norms by attacking Muslims, Mexicans, migrants, refugees, Blacks, poor people, and disabled people. He/she enforces tough policies, like discriminatory immigration bans, consciously destroying families as they scramble out of their “shit hole” countries, militarized police forces with few limits, and concentration camps that are actually a form of torture.

I’m not sure what else to say. We’re getting what we paid for. We gave $10 to a candidate and spent 30 minutes voting. Then, like Pilate, we washed our hands of any further responsibility. The problem is, we’re the ones getting crucified.