“Campaigns are designedly made into emotional orgies which endeavor to distract attention from the real issues involved.”
James Harvey Robinson
The recent pronouncement by the Federal Election Commission to limit the upcoming presidential and vice presidential debates to the Democratic and Republican standard bearers is yet another glaring example of the two major parties co-opting the American political process to their own ends … at the expense of ensuring the spirit and intent of the Constitution remains inviolate.
Not surprisingly, the Federal Elections Commission is stacked with GOP and Democratic loyalists, many of whom have clear allegiances to either Bill Clinton or Bob Dole, as well as to many well-heeled special interest groups who have poured millions into the campaign coffers of the major parties. Even Ross Perot’s suit challenging their decision lacks a full measure of credibility as its only purpose is to add his name to the roster of debate participants.
Meantime, the Libertarian and Natural Law parties (both of whom will appear on ballots in all fifty states) … but lacking the money and media access of the Texas billionaire … will be left unable to present their candidates, programs and ideas to the some 80 million Americans who will tune in to the debates.
Undeniably America has prospered under, or perhaps in spite of, the political stewardship of Republican and Democratic administrations. Today, our nation remains strong militarily and economically, and continues to provide the best model for freedom and the preservation of human rights in the history of mankind.
But, it is noteworthy all of the fundamental principals ingrained in our Constitution, as well as 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 their recognized “third party” contributions, the Republican and Democratic parties have systemically conspired to enact legislation effectively denying reasonable and easy ballot and debate access to minority parties.
This chicanery has been actively and consciously abetted by both the electronic and print media which seem to hang on the simplistic political babble of the Republican and Democratic candidates while virtually ignoring new and often radical proposals of their minority party opponents who are rarely afraid to wade into controversial issues the major party candidates scrupulously avoid.
The electronic media, in particular, has fallen prey to a political axiom that without both guaranteed ballot access and widespread support in the polls, minority party candidates and their ideas need not be seriously covered. Yet, without reasonable media coverage, it is difficult, if not impossible, for these candidates to gain name recognition or to get their substantive and often complex programs and solutions before large numbers of potential voters.
Rather, they pander to the shallow campaign drivel spewed forth by the Dole/Kemp and Clinton/Gore camps. While the GOP campaign struggles for themes, concurrently sputtering toward an inevitable and inglorious demise; the Democrats try to convince us we need more government (their village vision) to help us manage our lives and raise our children. Even Ross Perot’s message is lost in his excruciatingly boring infomercials and predictable “softball” interviews with Larry King.
As troubling, has been the total lack of any dialogue relative to how each would undertake their most sacred duty, one notably and specifically embodied in the oath of office for all military and government officials, including the president, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Inherent in that oath is the absolute obligation to preserve and protect the liberties manifest in the Bill of Rights and succeeding Amendments to the Constitution. Among those are the near unfettered right of free speech, freedom of association, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, equal protection and a host of other Constitutional guaranties … which Democrats and Republicans, including Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, have been all too willing to compromise in the name of saving us from ourselves or a variety of social ills for which they have no answer.
Why is it that we also fail to hear Bill Clinton, Bob Dole or their of minions talking heads explain the truth about, and realistic solutions to ensure the financial stability of the Social Security, Medicaid and Hospital Trust Funds … or perhaps what compromises or access promises have been made or are expected in return for the vast sums of soft money on which their campaigns feed.
Equally troubling, has been the acceptance of this exclusionary mentality by many business and political information organizations (specifically, the League of Women Voters) which have made a conscious decision to limit participation in their staged “events”. These restrictive policies have been graphically demonstrated in recent presidential election debates in which all third party candidates, with the partial exception of John Anderson in 1980 and that of Ross Perot in 1992, have been deliberately excluded.
Our political system was built on the concept of encouraging debate and dissent. In fact, the Bill of Rights was specifically embodied in our Constitution to preserve and protect such rights. Effectively quieting qualified candidates and their ideas (in the cases of the Libertarian, Reform, Natural Law and even the Green parties, in sharp contracts to those of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole) tends to trivialize those third party candidates, their programs and solutions … and is a clear and present danger to the American political system!
Meantime, the sponsors of these debates have further compromised their legitimacy by their blatant back-room pandering to the self-serving whims of the candidates and their handlers relative to participants, schedules and formats of the planned debates. Had they sufficient resolve, the sponsors of these events would set the locations, dates and formats and then invite all candidates. Those who opted out because of the format, height of the podiums, side of their head facing the camera, other participants or the range of issues to be discussed would speak volumes about their individual characters and true commitments toward the American public and the nation’s future.
During the past decade, hundreds of politicians, including the president and former Senate majority leader, have publicly lauded the governments of scores of emerging democracies, encouraging them to allow full political participation for all parties, large and small. Yet, their courage seems to desert them when they shrink from demanding we be as inclusive in our American political process.
Unlimited ballot access and debate participation 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 critical issues above the predictably meaningless pabulum and endless personal innuendoes we are currently fed. The American public must demand no less!
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 … and perhaps solve many nagging social and economic problems without sacrificing our freedoms.
