Vol. 2 No. 75 Nov. 9, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Ring the Bell

Now that we've finished the prelims, America is getting ready for the main event. Each boxer is in his or her corner (all sixteen of them) and all are getting last-minute briefings from their handlers, complete with styptic pencils to stop the bleeding.
Yes, the sparring season is upon us, only a year before the fight. Candidates are pledging to abstain from personal attacks while putting horseshoes in their gloves. Did Willard (Mitt) Romney once defend abortion? Pow! Did Fred Thompson get free airplane rides from a drug dealer? Pow! Did Hillary waffle on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens? Pow! Tell me, Mr. Edwards, is how you style what's on top of your head more important than what's inside it? Too bad about those ears, Mr. Kucinich. Pow! Pow!

Surely there must be something better than this slugfest/auction we throw every four years. In the just-completed off-off-year eBuy, we still had bidding, but the stakes were lower – with the exceptions of the huge chunks of dough sucked up by Measures 49 and 50. To be honest, the way we select our leaders gives me gas. Take the presidential sweepstakes – please.

Our continuing farce of “debates” makes me wonder who could answer questions like, “Our health system in in bad shape. Give us the details of your plan to fix it. Oh, yes, you have 45 seconds left to reply.” Thinking the world's problems can be solved with one-minute answers is one of the world's problems. Assembling eight or twelve people behind nicely decorated podiums for an hour or so is a great way to trivialize the election and further contribute to the epidemic of bumper-sticker thinking that, to some extent, got us into our current political septic tank to begin with. By the way, I'd also like to hear from two or three candidates at a sitting instead of a bunch that looks like a well-dressed, out of shape softball team.

Before we start having primaries, it would be nice to find out – in depth – what each candidate proposes. I'd like to hear how much each of their programs is going to cost and where the money is going to come from to pay for it. I'd like to get an idea who the candidates think would contribute most to their cabinets. This is very hard to discover in the four or five sound bites each person gets in a “debate.”

How about candidates being accorded equality in terms of free air time on radio and television? After all, these are public airwaves. Maybe banning election ads under a minute to prevent 'bumper-sticker”-type arguments? No opinion polls published for a stated time before the elections? Each candidate given spending limits, campaigns to be either completely financed with public funds or taken from a pool donated by citizens or corporations for the advancement of democracy? Why not?

What are the chances of just two election dates – both of them national holidays – one for primaries and one for the general election? Or does it make more sense for each state to push to the front of the line in order to “make a difference?”

Once elected, shouldn't a president have to conduct open press conferences or better, have an open Q&A session weekly with Congress so that the public can see and hear what's going on?

For those who are rolling their eyes and thinking what an absolute dork is passing for a Bogus Economist, let me add that everything I mentioned is – in some form - already law in some countries. In France, the rules about commercials and campaign financing are already in place. The time between their first election and final one is two weeks. Here it's ten months. In several European countries, all political parties are allocated equal funds. They figure having the best government money can buy isn't such a hot idea. Here, we make a contest over who hustles the most dough.

On C-Span, you can watch the near-weekly encounter between the British Prime Minister and Parliament in the House of Commons. Questions from both sides are fired quickly and usually answered the same way. The P.M. has to display a knowledge of a large number of problems with backup facts and figures as well as names of those delegated to work on them. This takes brains. The Parliament is usually packed. In Congress, you could shoot a cannon with little fear of hurting anybody. Everybody's out raising money. On the other hand, I suppose it's good there aren't many questions being asked because there's nobody there to answer them. It's not a mark of genius to suspect some things in government need changing.

As we gear up for the championship bout, we might reflect on what improvements we can still make in time for 2008. Congress could pass campaign financing laws now. It could begin a process to force those holding broadcasting licenses to use the public airways for pubic information prior to elections. It could use moral persuasion to require the president to face the media on a regular basis. A few well-placed letters or e-mails would help. We fight fans deserve the best. Everyone to their corners.

O.K. Ring the bell.

-30-

The Bogus Economist © 2007