TMV NOTE: This post ran yesterday and generated a lot of comments. Due to its subject matter, we’re running it again on today’s blog and it is presented here out of chronological order. Newer posts are underneath it, so please keep scrolling after you read it.
For a while now I, being Dutch, have been amazed by the emptiness of American politics. To me, it seems as if most debates are not about what one favors but about what one does not favor. Be it either individuals or parties.
An example of this is the tone of political advertisements. A while ago, I wrote a post called It’s All About Negativity. From that post:
When I look at the campaign tactics used in America, I am often struck by the low grade personal attacks used, the hatred, the fear, the bitterness, the list goes on and on. It truly is incredible. There seems to be but one kind of strategy: make everything look as negative as possible. Don’t focus on your own, positive plans / ideas, focus on how much of an incompetent jerk your opponent is.
In it I linked to this article at the New York Times. An interesting fact noted in that article is that 90% of all political advertisements this election year are expected to be negative.
Yesterday, Joe Gandelman pointed out that it’s not just ads that are negative, no, even former Presidents are guilty of not saying anything substantive: Bush 41 was quoted as saying:
“I would hate to think what Arlen’s life would be like, what Rick’s life would be like, and what my son’s life would be like if we lose control of the Congress. If we have some of these wild Democrats in charge of these committees, it will be a ghastly thing for our country.”
“They’d be pushing through all kinds of crazy legislation and they would be issuing the subpoenas, dragging people in just to be getting headlines.”
It’s not just political leaders / parties as such that use these strategies though: ‘John Doe’ uses them as well: in comment sections of just about every blog, including this one, people who will vote Democrat are telling other people that they should vote Democrat as well, because if they vote for a Republican candidate, they will simply be empowering Bush to draw more power to himself, &c., &c.
Also yesterday, the AP published an article about Nancy Pelosi’s 100 hours slogans. This is less negative than the examples mentioned above, but it, again, lacks any possible substance. I have made clear what I think about it in the comment section of the post about Bush 41 and in the post about David Cameron, so I will keep it short here: she just combined some nice ads (probably the other 10%) and put them into one. For more, just look here, here, here, here, here and here.
And there are many, many more examples. The ‘stay the course’ crowd for instance, led by US President George W. Bush. No real plan, nope, just… ‘stay the course’. ‘We’ve got to hang in there because if we don’t‘, &c.
What do these examples all share? A complete lack of substance. There is nothing of value in them. It are all empty phrases, either used to prevent one from voting for the other side (strictly anti-vote) or to make headlines (for instance the 100 hours ‘plan’).
Is this what all of you want to base your votes on? On exactly nothing? Is the only thing you all care about what the other side might do if they come into a position of power (and perhaps combined with some empty, nothing-explaining slogans being portrayed as if they are, somehow, substantive)? Is that all it takes to get your vote?
What do the respective parties plan on doing once they are in power, except for not doing what the other party might do?
Isn’t that far more important than all the crappy anti-ads? Isn’t that far more important to know, than why you should not vote for a specific party? What do both parties think about the economy? How do they plan on stimulating it? What will the results of this be? How will this influence the every day life of Americans?
What do they plan on doing regarding health care? Do they want to privatize it more, keep it as it is, more government? If they favor a change, how much will it cost and again how will that affect the lives of Americans? Will it also influence other areas? If so, how far?
What do they plan on doing regarding the environment? What will it cost? How will, if they plan on improving the environment, possible plans actually improve the environment? Will it be lasting? Will the costs be structural?
Alternative energy?
Will they encourage entrepreneurship? If so, how? And if that question is answered, give numbers, give facts. What will the results be?
Just a short example: because the first year is the most difficult year to get through for every new enterprise, I would advocate that new businesses will not have to pay any taxes the first year of their existence: just to get through that first, rough and tough period. Now see, that’s a plan. One can either agree, or disagree with it, but at least it is a plan about a specific subject.
The main problem with the current political culture in the US is, as I see it, that one will cast an anti-vote and that, after a few months, one notices that the party one voted for because one strongly opposed the other, is adopting all kinds of policies one does not agree with: before one knows it, one comes to the conclusion that one only agrees with, say, 40% of the policies introduced / adopted by before mentioned party. That one does not agree with 60% of the policies.
And – the real irony is – that in the comment section of the post about Bush 41, it seemed that most commenters agreed with each other on that. That all the above are, indeed, major problems in the US. But you all are letting it to happen. Do you really think that the respective parties would use the tactics if they were not working? Of course not. And they are only working, because all of you allow them to work.
Even more, what the comment sections prove time and time again is that once a real, in-depth debate takes place, people come to understand the arguments of the other side and seem to be able to compromise. Or, if they are not able to compromise, they at least understand each other completely and feel sympathy for the other person’s views: the other is not crazy, dumb, blinded, etc. No.
However, that is how the political culture in the US has become: the opposing side cannot possibly have some good points: nope, the others are evil, lazy, greedy, fascist, communist, the list goes on and on and that is why one should not vote for them and, thus automatically one should vote for the other.
What I also noticed is the broad support for a viable third party. A new party, broadly supported. This, many argue, would solve the current political culture: it would be a wake-up call and it would simply force the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to stop you-know-what around and offer true plans, true ideas for the future of America.
I (generally) agree with that: the DP and the RP are fighting each other for so long, that they have now arrived at the point that they are not willing to provide Americans with plans: only with propaganda about what the other party might do.
They are fighting, but for what? Not for ideas, not for real plans. Well, at least not real plans and ideas they want to present to the American people that is.
The most effective and quickest way of creating a third party that might actually become powerful, is by pushing certain political leaders who do not agree with the current political climate either and / or don’t fall in the ‘mainstream’ of the political party they belong to (or, perhaps better said, don’t have the support of the most influential group(s) of the party they belong to), to break loose from it and join forces.
The key to it all, however, is the American people itself. Nothing will change if Americans themselves do not enforce it. The current political parties are satisfied with the status quo and why would they not? It’s working perfectly fine for them.
Another and most likely more realistic way (not difficult to achieve of course – the other is incredibly difficult to achieve) of transforming the current nothingness into substance, is by simply influencing both big parties directly. To start demanding more than what you all are getting now. To demand real plans. To demand real ideas. To demand real figures / numbers, etc.
Make clear that putting a few slogans together do not make a plan… Nothing will change unless the average American demands it. It is that simple.
PS
Let it be clear that every democracy in the world has its own problems. I am simply observing certain things and, because it was mentioned in the comment sections am trying to come up with possible ‘solutions’ for this particular problem. By no means am I trying to act as if my own country, for instance, is perfect.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.