The State of Modern American Elections

Americans should consider themselves blessed to live in a country that has elections. Perhaps there are more nations in existence today that have elections than at any other time in history, but there are still many nations where people do not have this right, and those who advocate for it are either imprisoned or killed. It is with this perspective then that we must approach the following problem: the sad, unfortunate and wrong state of modern American elections.

I like to think that I am generally more aware of American politics than the average voter. I read the news everyday and even do some extra research on the Presidential candidates. It troubles me then when I am unable to speak to any meaningful differences that I can gather between the major contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations. That is to say, I am generally incapable of explaining to a person what the political and philosophical differences are between say Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are on the one hand, and Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney are on the other.

If my life depended on it, I would not be able to tell you how the Democrats differ amongst each other and the Republicans differ amongst each other on issues like healthcare or how to prosecute the War on Terrorism.

I will assume that a good portion of my ignorance is my own fault. After all, because I am conscious of my ignorance it is my responsibility to enlighten myself. I do think it noteworthy to mention, however, that I can list in descending order who on both sides of the aisle have raised the most money. I can tell you that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are leading their expected fields in fundraising and that the 2008 election is expected to be the first billion-dollar race in the United States’ history.

Does this information matter? Absolutely not. If any voter in this country is at all truly considering who the next President or candidates should be based upon how much money they have raised, they should be promptly deported. The philosophy and proposed policies of the candidates are what matters, and not how much money they have raised, how many times they have been to Iowa or even how many wives they have had (or could have).

But why do so many Americans (or at least just me) seem to know more about these negligible aspects of candidates rather than what really matters? Not surprisingly, the mass media is the primary culprit.

Let me preface the following by saying that it is unfortunate a free society necessitates a free press for its continued survival. While a free press has the ability to hold government accountable and shed light on government scandal, it is also subject to the free market.

Newspapers and news channels are privately owned businesses, and in the game to make money for their owners. By being so, most media looses any intelligence and most of its virtue.

The Media focuses on what will hold its viewers’ attention and inevitably yield the highest economic profit. Unfortunately, it makes more sense from the perspective of media companies to harp on how much money Hillary Clinton has raised rather than her proposed health care plan.

But if the Media is only doing what makes the most economic sense, it must be following the demands of the public, and therefore our second culprit is the American public. In our modern age of instant communication and instant answers, it almost seems as if Americans want instant candidates. Very few people are willing to take the time (or maybe, don’t have the time) to really learn about the candidates’ ideas.

People want the news delivered in a quick and hard hitting twenty minute segment. Inevitably, the Media delivers this, and so candidates find themselves forced to create catch phrases in order to get air time. Instead of telling us their philosophy on human existence, a candidate is either pro-life or pro-choice. Instead of explaining their own interpretation of the judicial branch, candidates label judges they disagree with as activist. Instead of debating the nature of a just war, candidates are labeled as either hawks or doves. These terms mean nothing.

Unfortunately, Americans’ short attention span and disinterest in what really matters in politics has lead to the dumbing-down of American elections. No longer does the candidate with the best philosophy win, but the candidate who can raise fifty million dollars in two months, has the best one-liners and best appeals to the ignorance of the masses.

Modern American elections are in a sad, sad state.