This election season is unbearably tragic.
Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s boneheaded ‘Citizen United’ decision earlier this year, corporations, unions, rich fatcats and special interest groups can dump untold fortunes into political campaigns and causes. And, they can do so under the cloak of secrecy with fake organizational names like The Coalition For Freedom And Justice To Preserve Our Constitutional Rights, or People for Protection Against Terror & Terrorists, or Citizens Who Truly Love The American Way of Life, or God’s People Fighting The Hidden Satanic Powers.
All this money is used to make spots that plunge our political discourse to new depths of sleaze, muckraking and mud slinging. The spots flood the airwaves with copy points like…
“Joe Doe says he wants to lower taxes, but he’s never denied that he hasn’t killed small children or strangled puppies with his bare hands…”
“Tom Mutt claims to be a family man, but how do we know he doesn’t have three, four or even ten wives– with countless illegitimate children born out of wedlock? Can we really trust a man of unproven, questionable moral character to represent us in Washington?”
“If Jane Duwayne is so concerned about balancing the state’s budget, why did she get slapped with stinging penalty overdraft charges to her checking account in 1998? Is this the sort of fiscally irresponsible behavior we want today? Can we really trust our financial future to someone who is so reckless she’s been penalized by big banks? And how do we know she doesn’t owe those big bankers more payback? Can we really afford to mortgage our future, and our children’s future on Jane Duwayne?”
“Mike Tadpole says he’s a conservative Republican. But we have no idea if he voted for Obama, secretly loves Nancy Pelosi or is best friends with Harry Reid. And how do we know he’s not hiding bin Laden in his tool shed? Could that be the reason he’s never once talked about his tool shed in his campaigning? What’s Mike Tadpole hiding? Do we really want to find out?”
Sadly, until some real campaign finance reform legislation is passed, which will be next to never since the money funding politicians won’t allow it, we’re stuck with our current freak show political process and airwaves clogged with mud. And all too often, the candidates and causes with the deepest pockets win. And exactly whose best interest do you think they’re beholden to?
Pitiful. Can’t we do better?
Yes, it’s sad. But there’s a historical precedence for it.
The Founding Fathers scuffled amongst themselves, arguing passionately for one idea or another in Independence Hall and other venues. Sometimes they wrote virulent tracts or letters to the editor of various newspapers under assumed names.
When the person who was being scorned or accused of one scandalous act/thought or another finally reached the breaking point and thought he should seek redress, there was a manly procedure he would follow.
He wouldn’t bombard his opponent with scurrilous and anonymous ads or columns in newspapers. He wouldn’t hire an attorney or law firm to take his opponent to the lowest or highest courts of the land. Instead he would challenge his opponent to a duel, as Aaron Burr did when remarks Alexander Hamilton had made at a dinner party festered to the point that Burr lost his good sense (if he had any). So, on July 11, 1804, Burr met Hamilton at the Heights of Weehawken, NJ. Hamilton was killed. Burr was indicted for murder in both NJ and NY. Charges were later dismissed, but Burr’s political career and influence was essentially over.
We could bring back dueling between political opponents, even televising the duels. With dueling as a means for political opponents to settle the inevitable disputes that arise between them, perhaps they’d be a lot more honest about the outlandish things they say to each other and us.
As for political funds gathered from anonymous donors, Justice Roberts has come a long way from calling balls and strikes as a baseball umpire would do, as he asserted he would do during his confirmation hearings. He was deceptively charming during the hearings. And now? It’s obvious he came to the bench with an almost revolutionary agenda.
Dueling would solve half the problem. How ’bout it, Supremes?
Patrick, my cousin out in Acworth is worried about this posting of yours. He says if you’re gonna pick fights with mudslingers, you’d better be prepared to duck.
I’m not looking to pick fights with mudslingers, I’d only like some sanity brought into the political process– and to get out the swarms of lobbyists with special interests, pork barrel pigs and fatcats with free money to buy politicians.