Real Campaign Reform

As we approach another presidential election, various pundits will begin to through in their two cents concerning just what is needed to make things better this time. Funny thing is, it seems to always get worse. On top of that, the proposed changes nearly always require congress to make those changes.

Now, just what is congress? Well, it’s a bunch of guys who want to get re-elected. Why should they make any real changes to a system which got them exactly where they want to be? It’s not going to happen. So, what do we do?

Let’s begin by considering just what it is that we intend to do. The goal is to reform campaigns and campaigning. That sounds pretty clear, but, it is not as if we can send campaigns and campaigning to reform school and everything will be all better. That’s because campaigns and campaigning are abstractions, they are not concrete, especially in the sense that masons (brick layers) think of it.

What I suggest is that we consider reforming the campaigners, and not by sending them to reform school, nor to prison, however much it may be deserved. Instead, what if we eliminate negative campaigning and thereby reform the campaigners?

I mention this because I’ve read that some nations have laws prohibiting negative advertising. Manufacturers and retailers are not allowed to say anything bad about their competitors. Instead, they must explain the benefits of their products and/or services. Naturally some negative things may be assumed by the public, but it cannot be stated.

Why not the same thing for elections? Why not force candidates to explain what is better about their proposal rather than ridiculing the alternative?

For example, instead of saying “The President has ruined the economy...”, instead say something like “For too long, policies have been enacted which....I suggest that we...” Get the picture?

What about freedom of speech? I don’t see a problem. Remember, there are still words that get bleeped, and increasingly we find various sorts of censorship pertaining to things or language deemed by some to be offensive, as if most campaign rhetoric isn’t offensive to rational thought! Freedom of speech cannot compel, or force us to endure vulgar or abusive language.

Again, congress is not the answer! Each state can set its own guidelines and rules, and those

sponsoring a debate can add to these if they choose.

Every year chess championships are played in America, and across the world, and the players must abide by strict rules of conduct, I mean, imagine the players insulting each other as they wait for their opponents to make their move!

Politics is also a game (though I prefer to compare it clowns in a circus) and such rules do not violate the constitution.

I doubt that anything will come of this as it is easy to slander, and slander is mostly emotive. Rational explanations require too much work for politicians, and are too cerebral for crowds.

Until next time...it’s something to think about.