Wednesday, December 01, 2004
(6:20 PM) | Anonymous:
A Perfect Candidate
Regarding the Xanga - I'll get back to that later.But for now, I just saw "A Perfect Candidate" this morning, and it left me feeling depressed and morose...
The movie's all about Ollie North's bid for the Virginia Senatorship in 1994. It gives an amazing inside look into the people behind the campaign.
It seems like I've seen several such movies of late, including one which followed Stephonopalus (sp?) and Carville as they headed up president Clinton's first campaign, the name of which escapes me right now, and several others.
After seeing how the political process works, this is my conclusion: We suck.
I remember the first time I saw ESPN's "The Season". I'd always dreamed of being a GM. I had conversations with friends, wondering about just calling up other GMs and being like "hey, we want this player" and then talking it out over dinner and reaching a deal. I thought that was stupid. There was something more to it. Surely it was entirely professional and not so light-hearted. Then, watching the season, I see the GM of the Red Wings randomly talk over dinner with the
team president, and say "Wouldn't it be cool if we got Mathieu Schneider?" (a defenseman). They end up, over their spaghetti, calling the other team's GM and just goofing around for a while before making this decision: in short, there's nothing more, they do exactly what thousands of armchair GMs do on discussion boards and bleacher seats all around the nation. Only, when they do it, it's for real.
This is exactly true of the political process. You know the times where you've sat around with like-minded friends and sneered at the other side? Made shallow jokes that simplify the issues just to get a laugh, and so forth? That's exactly what the top aides do. Only, out of those stupid jokes, they take notes for what to throw in their next ad. They talk only of the race, just as most pundits do, and issues are a secondary concern. It's seriously, from the 3-4 campaigns I've watched unfold in these movies, exactly like you and your friends sitting in the dorm sneering at the other side. Whatever it is I, and I think most others, expect there to be "more" of in such situations, it's not there, simple as that.
I don't think I've ever felt more disenfranchised then I do after watching this back-breaking movie. IT really is just a game. There was an admitted war criminal running against someone who was accused of (and seemingly did) using coke while Governor, and somehow, it still remained just a game. It's conniving. It's trying to figure out how best to manipulate people. It's sickening. Most of all, however, it's childish.
That's the best word I can think of to describe the current state of politics: childish. We are little pre-pubescent grade schoolers, enamored with the daily entertainment of politics, and people are dying because of it.
And that's just it, all of us are addicted to the entertainment value of present day politics. It gives us something to root for. Perhaps more importantly, it gives us something to demonize and root against. The people who run the campaigns are no less addicted to this than those who get caught up in it. And I'm no less addicted to it than anyone else, or my attention wouldn't be kept so rapt so early in the morning by a rare glimpse at it.
The main strategist for Oliver North has a few very insightful moments. Perhaps the most telling is one where he describes the problem of the difference between campaigning and governing. In campaigning, the goal is to divide. As he says, you try to take the rock of the people, grab your piece, and smash the rest into so many different divided pieces that they don't matter and cancel each other out. Then, if you manage to win this way, you are charged with governance. In governance, you try to gather a consensus, you try to fix the very wounds you caused, and will willingly cause again next election cycle.
But, is there a candidate out there who isn't constantly campaigning any more? As bad as the situation Gooding (the campaign manager) describes is, is it actually even worse? Usually one ends a campaign and immediately begins raising funds for the next one. Those scant 1-2 years of reuniting that Gooding says exist have even been eroded in modern times by the constant need to campaign, which is a need to divide, in order to gather your base and seperate yourself from the rest.
Is there any hope? In the end, as North loses, Gooding is seen tearing up and walking away, he bitterly mumbles that he's learned his lesson, that positive campaigns don't work - when you have a man's throat under your foot, you must press until he stops breathing, or you'll lose. Admittedly, it hardly looks like Gooding ran the "positive" campaign he believes he did, there are tons of negative campaign ads against Senator Robb, the candidate.
But, if even slightly positive campaigns result in loss, is there any hope? Or will those who choose a slightly positive campaign only get bitter and more hostile, as Gooding does? Is there any way for politics to ever be about helping people again? Can the study of politics quit being the analysis of the sport of politics and an attempt to deduce the best way to govern, as when it began?
I have said it many times before, and I think it must hold true: For all elections, anyone who wants the position should simply be required to send a resume and a 500 word essay, they shouldn't be able to label themselves as members of a certain faction. Then, whoever wants can come and read those essays, and then cast their vote for the best one. To get around the sheer number, maybe you could have other branches of the government or editorial boards or school children, or maybe just appoint Dallas Head Coach Bill Parcells to choose the top 10 candidates for everyone to read.
But, that's unrealistic. Coming off an election in which I disgusted myself by the lengths I went to in "playing the game", I'm really struggling to see any hope for politics. A part of me wants to say "screw it", to vote for my Ward 3 Sewage Commisioner who might make a difference, but nothing higher, and simply seek to find ways to work without politics.
Is that an answer? If not, what alternatives are there?
