(NPR WEVO FM-89 On-Air Editorial)

 

It is historically noteworthy that many fundamental principals ingrained in our Constitution, as well as the most of today’s mainstream social and economic programs were hatched by citizens working for political parties other than the Republicans or Democrats.  Yet, despite these recognized “third-party” contributions, the Republican and Democratic parties have systematically conspired to enact legislation effectively denying easy ballot access to minority parties. 

The electronic media in particular has fallen prey to a political axiom that without guaranteed ballot access and widespread support in the polls, minority party candidates need not be covered seriously.  Yet, without reasonable coverage, it is difficult, if not impossible, for these candidates gain name recognition or to get their substantive and often complex program and solutions before large numbers of potential the voters.

Equally troubling has been the acceptance of this exclusionary mentality by many business and political information organizations which have made a conscious decision to limit participation in their staged “events”. These restrictive policies have been graphically demonstrated in recent weeks when sponsors of gubernatorial debates deliberately excluded one-third of the candidates qualified to appear on November’s ballot!  

Our political system was built on the concept of encouraging debate and dissent.  Effectively quieting qualified candidates and their ideas, in this case ideas in sharp contrast to those of Mr. Gregg and Mr. Grandmaison, tends to trivialize those candidates and is a dangerous precedent!  Unlimited ballot access for all parties and qualified

candidates, accompanied by fair and reasonable media coverage can only raise the level of public debate on a wide range of hard issues above the meaningless pabulum and endless personal innuendos we are currently fed. 

During the past year, hundreds of politicians, including Judd Gregg and Joe Grandmaison, have publicly lauded the governments of dozens of emerging democracies, encouraging them to allow full political participation of all parties, large and small.  Yet, their courage seems to desert them when they shrink from demanding we be as inclusive in our American and New Hampshire political processes.

The time has come to strip away restrictive and unfair laws governing ballot access.  The media, and other sponsors of political events, including debates, need to demonstrate their mettle and broaden the political process, opening it to those without “connections”, to those who are not part of the Republican or Democratic establishment, to those without significant financial resources and to those with new and different solutions.  Only in such a marketplace of fresh ideas and increased competition, will the American electorate again begin to believe it has a say in how it is governed.

Undeniably, America has prospered under the political stewardship of Republican and Democratic administrations.  Today, our nation is strong both militarily and economically, and continues to provide the best model for freedom and the preservation of human rights in the history of mankind.

It is worth noting, however, that many fundamental principals ingrained in our Constitution, as well as the most of today’s mainstream social and economic programs were hatched by dedicated citizens working for political parties other than the Republicans or Democrats. 

Yet, despite these recognized “third-party” contributions, the Republican and Democratic parties have systematically conspired to enact legislation effectively denying easy ballot access to minority parties.  This chicanery has been actively and consciously abetted by both the electronic and print media which seems to hang on the simplistic political babble of Republican and Democratic candidates while generally ignoring new, substantive and often radical proposals of their “minority” party opponents, particularly when such ideas and programs are complex and take several minutes or more to explain. 

The electronic media in particular has fallen prey to a political axiom that without guaranteed ballot access and widespread support in the polls, minority party candidates need not be covered seriously.  Yet, without reasonable coverage, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for these candidates to get their messages and programs before the voters or to have their often tough questions publicly addressed to and by their Democratic and Republican antagonists.

Equally troubling has been the acceptance of this exclusionary mentality by business and so-called political information organizations which have also made the conscious decision to limit participation in their staged “debates”, to Republican and Democratic standard bearers only.

These restrictive policies have never been more graphically demonstrated as in recent weeks when, during gubernatorial debates sponsored by the Nashua and Manchester Chambers of Commerce and the State’s Business and Industries Council one-third of the candidates who have qualified to appear on November’s ballot were deliberately excluded!  

Even more disturbing was New Hampshire Public Television’s decision to follow this pattern and refuse to allow Miriam Luce, a Libertarian candidate who has qualified for the state’s gubernatorial ballot, to participate in their October 2nd televised debate.  According to a Channel 11 spokesman  this decision was made “in the best interests of the citizens of the State of New Hampshire”. 

Aside from the arrogance of such a statement, one must question whether Channel 11 is acting any different from the state-run media in Iraq, Cuba or the People’s Republic.  Our American political system was built on the concept of encouraging political dissent.  Effectively quieting qualified candidates and their ideas … in this case ones in sharp contrast to those of Messrs. Gregg and Grandmaison … is immoral and a dangerous precedent!  One begins to wonder what happened to the days when public television was forum which sought out ideas and individuals which found it difficult to gain a public hearing in the private media?

Unlimited ballot access for all parties choosing to run qualified candidates, accompanied by fair and reasonable media coverage can raise level of public debate on a wide range of hard issues above the meaningless pabulum and endless personal accusations we are currently fed. 

Some argue that an abundance of candidates might drag a campaign into the minutiae of irrelevant issues, and that is a risk.  However, if the rhetoric of the past decade has been any bell weather of how the Republicans and Democrats will deal with today’s substantive questions, then even the above scenario would be a welcome improvement.  Others media insiders contend they simply don’t have the air time or resources, nor can they financially afford to cover dozens of candidates for each race.  Could the truth be that these debate sponsors are terrified Judd Gregg or Joe Grandmaison wouldn’t show up if Miriam Luce was scheduled to appear on stage with them?

During the past year, thousands of our politicians, including Judd Gregg and Joe Grandmaison, have publicly lauded the governments of dozens of emerging democracies, encouraging them to allow full political participation of all parties, large and small.  Yet, their courage seems to desert them when they shrink from demanding we be as inclusive in our American and New Hampshire political processes.

The time has come to strip away the restrictive and unfair laws governing ballot access.  Concurrently the media, and other sponsors of political information events, including debates, need to demonstrate their mettle and work to broaden the political process, opening it to those without “connections”, to those who are not part of the Republican or Democratic establishment, and to those without significant financial resources.  Only in this way, in a fresh marketplace of ideas and increased competition, will the American electorate again begin to believe it has a say in how it is governed.