by Jack
You probably believe that in our great democracy elections are as fair and honest as they can get. The average voters sees it something like this: A person makes that fateful decision to run and then he raises some money, advertises his beliefs and ideas and if they are well received he win’s…right? Wrong, and you REALLY need to read on.
What you the voter and our decent candidates are up against is a corrupt, complex political game of sabotage and disinformation. Somewhere in this muddy process your vote gets hijacked.
Truism: The higher the office the more likely it is that a candidate’s ideas and beliefs are scientifically crafted based upon polling data. It becomes harder to know who you’re voting for when his consultants are putting words into his mouth. But, that’s almost tolerable compared to the rest of the low election tactics.
In situations where the incumbent is leaving: Typically the outgoing guy picks his successor a few years ahead of the primary date. His team of election consultants and field operators make sure that all possible challengers are taken out early in the game. This almost always involves a vicious smear campaign – character assassination with the truth being the first casualty.
To knock out a candidate the professional campaign managers will reach deep into the past and whatever skeletons they find winds up as a hit piece in your mailbox or in a media ad and they make it look as current and as bad as possible. This takes a lot of time, energy and most of all money.
So, the considerable financial resources of the outgoing incumbent and his long list special interest groups are put at the disposal of the anointed one, his successor. Already you can see how the “selected” candidate has an overwhelming chance of dominating the election field. At the risk of sounding like and echo from the Florida hanging chad election…they get selected, not elected…and not by you and that’s the problem. We only think it’s by us.
The professional election formula says it takes a minimum of seven mailers in each mailbox in the district to sway our vote. That takes an enormous amount of cash. And then there are the billboards and yard signs, etc., just for extra measure and it all costs big money.
Next comes the politician’s endorsements. Don’t trust them! The political ads are typically full of glowing endorsements, but please don’t be fooled. “In politics nobody does nothin for free.” Those political endorsements come with major partisan strings and brother they can be long strings that last a lifetime.
Back on the honest side of politics, good ol “Independent challenger guy” is running up against a lot of obstacles and he is finding it difficult to get traction with the voters. First, he has a lot of trouble raising money, gaining an audience and getting key endorsements; Most of these things were locked up years before he even thought about running! So he is frequently shut out and shunned by the party faithful at the very time when he needs their help the most. It’s good if the incumbent or his chosen one owns a few GOP central committees or Democratic clubs. That makes it easier to recruit helpers and money for said candidate.
People like to back winners and they like that celebrity status which outgoing guy has transferred to his heir apparent. This is why the lion’s share of major contributions always goes to the incumbent or to the person endorsed by the outgoing incumbent. But, those special interests who fund 80% of typical elections aren’t just backing the guy picked by the incumbent because they like his politics – no, they are protecting their investment an investment that began many years earlier.
These special interest groups need regular access to your representative and access means influence on legislation. The only way to do that is to be sure the new guy is bought and paid for just like the old guy. It’s not exactly bribery, but its close. The more elections cost – the more potential there is to make deals behind the scenes with your candidate. The desperate need for money can compromise the ethics of what would otherwise be some very good people.
It takes a tremendous amount of money to run for election and each new election raises the spending bar. Not because the voters demand it, and it’s not because of the need to communicate more effectively, but it’s because this is the first way to discourage the competition and this also makes for a very exclusive field of players.
Money equals power and power equals money and this is the way politics is played today, more than ever and its only going to get worse.
We’ve all wondered how we could have so much corruption in high office. Well, it’s the money. These guys are running for re-election 24/7 and that means they are taking large amounts of cash while they are writing legislation. Don’t you see how dangerous that is?
At the very core of everything bad in politics is money, yet the supreme co9urt says money equals free speech. Baloney! Money crushes it. Money has a direct effect on shutting out good people because they don’t have it. Money locks in the bad people who do have it. Money allows those low Machiavellian tactics, and those unholy alliances to form a network of insiders all working in concert to insure their boy gets the election so their futures will be likewise be assured.
In contrast to the big game run on voters election primaries have more or less become just a mere formality. The election outcome was preordained by tried and true tactics that assure us who would win long before the first vote was cast. The best battle is one that is won before it’s fought.
This conspiracy method is not completely fool proof system, however if works well enough to have delivered you the lousy government you complain about every day. And despite all your complaining things don’t change – so we can conclude their tactics work!
This new political game is high finance melded to high tech and it produces rampant cronyism. It works incredibly well in gerrymandered districts where one party holds a lock, then the demographics of said district guarantees that the candidate who emerges victorious from the primary will win in the general election.
It should be disconcerting to know that your vote has been virtually stolen by the campaign pro’s. The tactics they use work in election after election and that’s a shame. These are such simple tactics too – you would think we would be smarter and not fall for them but we do. They use junk copying favorable issues based on polling to molding the candidate into a new image that sells or they just get the right kind of backing from big names. Ideas, honesty and inspired thought don’t matter nearly as much as knowing the right people – thanks to dimwit voters who overwhelm intelligent voting 2 to 1.
The high propensity voters (people who have voted in the last 3 elections) are particularly singled out for the blitz by the professionals. So much psychology is employed in ads… imagine if we used this creative energy to solve problems facing America instead of electing some dufus?
Here’s how to break this cycle of corruption the usurping of your votes: You trash every bit of campaign advertising that comes to your mailbox and instead you listen to the debates or you attend meetings where the candidates will present themselves. Then take part in them and ask the tough questions. Use credible independent news sources and yes…there are credible news sources, you just have to look for them. One I frequently use is called “Open Secrets”..you can Google it.
The bottom line: You must vote your conscience, and to heck with whoever you are told will win and how you must hold your nose and vote for the person who has the only real chance. Don’t you ever do that! That’s what’s been killing us. Don’t you ever let someone trick you into thinking that you are wasting your vote because your guy doesn’t have a chance.
If we voters could do our part we would be giving new hope and encouragement for good candidates to give it a shot. We would be sending them a message that they will have a fair chance. Isn’t that worth investing some of your time?
Wow Jack what an eye opener! Thanks for exposing a lot of the skullduggery that is going on behind the scenes. After reading this, the first thing a person might think is Gee, Id better really check these candidates out before the November election. WRONG! After the passage of Prop. 14, a lot more offices will be decided in the June primary. Why? Because the new law allows only 2 primary winners to be on the November ballot. In many congressional and state districts like ours, the only candidates who will end up on the November ballot will be a Democrat and a Republican. Because of political gerrymandering years ago, the Republicans in our districts almost always win. Now, more than ever, it is really important for us to do our investigating before the June primary so the political bosses dont control who will be on the November ballot.
If you want better elected officials follow Jacks advice BEFORE the June 2012 Primary:
– Trash every bit of campaign advertising that comes to your mailbox
– Listen to the debates or you attend meetings
– Ask the tough questions
– Use credible independent news sources like OpenSecrets.org
– Vote your conscience. Dont hold your nose and vote for the bum that you are told is the most electable
Dream on, Jack.
Your own writing partner isn’t going to take your advice!
Truer words could not be written, and after being a delegate with you at the CRA convention in Sacramento last month I completely understand what you are saying.
I will vet every candidate on my own including whom they have working for them. Following the money, includes the career advancement of those working for the politician/s. If I see certain names on a payroll, I will support and vote for their opponent when possible.
Thanks Mike and I have to say that Prop 14 was one of the most tragic events ever to befall good government. It ruined the 3rd parties from having any chance at all. I was incredibly disappointed that such a law could be used against them.
Thank you Peggy and thanks for not saying anything about all my errors in my rough draft! lol
Hey, remember I’m the one that went to 10 different schools in 12 years and came out with the worst spelling and grammar possible. Thankful, to whomever invented spell check. Wish they’d do the same with grammar and sentence structure.
It was still a good article!
Jack as always your dedication to high principles and honesty are to be commended.
We live in a fallen world with flawed people; it isn’t surprising that politics is less than perfect.
I can understand your frustration at the party heirarchy choosing a candidate in advance. I would be equally troubled if they simply left it open to chance!!! What if an “independent challenger guy” failed to step forward? What if the only independent guy to step forward turned out to be terribly inept and inadequate when the going got tough? Who would you fall back on then and woulod it be too late to mount a good challenge?
It’s damned tough to go up against the “chosen” candidate. It would take an exceptional contender with strong backing to overcome the party’s main choice. An independent guy would have to have not just good administrative skills and experience (be a good guy) but also the ability to attract considerable attention. Supersalesman if you will. Not many people can do this…and it IS a requirement! The person we elect to the highest office in the land must be able to stand on the public stage of the world and perform exceptionally well, often under pressure.
Such a run would be a daunting undertaking; a little like climbing Everest. Without adequate backing independent guy doesn’t have a chance to make it beyond base camp. The bigger the office the greater the need for a strong team of supporters and backers. This is the dilema for independent guy. Being “good people” is not enough if you can’t capture the attention that will result in votes (and yes dollars…lots of them). This is the biggest reason it is rarely done.
Not everyone who plays piano beautifully will make it to Carnegie Hall. It doesn’t mean they aren’t among the best; it does mean they, 1. Didn’t really want it (weren’t serious), 2. Failed to grab the kind of attention that would take them to the top, or 3. Misjudged the probability. It’s the same in politics.
Here are some stats to chew on from 2008:
Ron Paul was able to raise 20 million dollars in the fourth quarter of 2007 alone and almost all of it from individual voters. He held the record for most money raised in a single day. African Americans and servicemen were strong Paul supporters. He had a broad grassroots organization and internet presence. Clearly he made a good run…but still got less than 10% of the vote. Like Reagan (the first time) before him, this strong (but inadequate) showing should give him cause to beleive it’s possible to win. (and apparently it has)
The times have changed a lot since 2008. America needs what Paul has to sell more than ever before. Americans are fed up with the status quo and with skanky politicians. They are eager for new blood or at least new ideas from someone “else”. (one reason Obummer was elected) There’s a much better chance that a candidate like Paul, with a good team and a good plan, could successfully challenge the difficult terrain (even the power at the top of the party) and plant his flag at the top.
I think that people who pay attention to politics as you do have already tossed those flyers in the trash and investigated for themselves before casting their votes. The “deciders” in the election are the millions who vote that don’t pay attention. You are wise to advise them as you have today! (but are they reading this?)
Like it or don’t, those who don’t pay attention (but still vote) make a big difference. Happily they are also the most vulnerable to a smart, articulate, campaigner with a message that resonates…particularly in troubled times like these. It’s part of the game, Jack, there is no getting around it.
Finally, I have to admit that Quentin is right about one thing. (yes I know Quentin…you told him so). I will not vote in the final election for someone that has no chance of winning against the current occupant of the WH. I think such a vote would be based in pride rather than sound reasoning and would only assist the progressive that is taking us down a dark path of certain destruction.
The candidate we select for president, if he wins, will still have to work within the structure of checks and balances of government and will still face realities and obstructions that make change difficult. He/she will still dissappoint us…even if it turns out to be someone like Ron Paul.
I guess what I’m saying is that a candidate that cannot attract enough support to be in the running also can’t win. Candidates know this…Paul knew it in June of 08.
Jack that is a very cynical outlook. It’s true that is how the old school political consultants run campaigns. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Those tactics can be defeated with a honest straight forward message. You are dead wrong about not reading the mail. People hate that that negative stuff and you don’t have to go negative to win. You do have to get your message out and without money there is no chance of doing that. You can be outspent 2 to 1 and still win with an honest message.
Look no farther than Mark Sorensen. The democrats had a 17,000 to republican 14,000 registration advantage. Yet he won by a landslide without ever promising anything but conservative leadership. Those professional consultants you are talking about will tell you that no Republican candidate can win against those odds. They will also tell you that a 32 year incumbent democrat in a 43% democratic to 29% republican district cannot be beaten by a conservative Republican. Cynicism never changed a thing and doesn’t win “imposable” races. Just don’t say they cannot be won by honest candidates in the mail. We know that is not true. Are you going to believe what you saw or stick with how you feel?
I was bombarded with the CRA sleaze war over leadership. I did no renew my membership. There is a better way ~ John
All good points Pypr, too good for a quick knee jerk response. I’m thinking about what you said and doing some soul searching. Be back soon.
Pypr, I have had some time to digest what you said and what I had intended to say in my original original article. I also considered what Tina had to say in reply too. My first thought on this was, cynicism is often an integral part of idealism.
But, the really important part of my message was that, cynicism, mockery and criticism can help shape public attitudes and pressure candidates into running cleaner elections. Public scorn can work wonders!
When you said voters are tired of the negative ads, that’s probably true, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that voters still respond to them. This tells us we still have more work ahead and we need to keep the pressure on to expose sleazy election tactics. Honest criticism by opposing candidates is fair – sleazy distortions and muck raking is not and again this is only one small part of how our votes are cleverly stolen.
Pypr, you’re right to say, candidates shouldn’t go there and that a candidate can win by being himself, by staying on issue and by trusting to intelligent voters. I believe that is possible, but I also believe it is the exception and not the general rule. I want to make it the general rule! This is the other leg of what my goals are for clean elections. It’s fundamental to our future to encourage good people to run and then stand by them to help them become elected. Creating controlled Central Committees or fake Committees or fake Clubs or fake PACs created to serve the sole needs of the people seeking election. This is deceptive and creates a false impression with the voters and such tactics are wrong – yet we know it happens far too often. This is just another example among many low tactics that currently exist and win elections!
Those candidates are telling us the ends justify the means, I’m just saying don’t fall for it. This is a time to question everything and seek out the truth more than we ever have before!
Pypr I would be proud to join you anytime in pursuit of fair, open and honest elections. I appreciate your optimism and it’s needed, but please know that with accountability there must come criticism. It too has its place in our mutual idealistic goals for better elections and better candidates.
I keep beating this same drum over and over and sooner or later I hope people will come to understand that I’m for real. I believe what I am saying and I have no hidden agenda. I’m hurt by what I see happening in our elections and it makes me angry.