Quick Takes #1
Brief thoughts on this and that
168 is a newsletter emailed on an unscheduled basis in which I share my thoughts on various topics for discussion. Please add your comments by clicking on the REPLY button at the end of this piece. To view archived newsletters, please visit www.1hundredsixty8.substack.com.
Maybe A Compressed Campaign Season Is the Way to Go
The success of Kamala Harris’s campaign in overcoming Donald Trump’s polling lead within a month of President Joe Biden leaving the race is without recent precedent. It raises the question of why we traditionally endure Presidential campaigns of two or more years when four months may prove to be sufficient. The Vice President’s joyfully energetic style on the campaign trail, as well as that of running mate Tim Walz, represents not only a stark contrast not to the weakened efforts of President Biden but to the dystopian fear-mongering of Donald Trump, a contrast exacerbated by Trump’s inane stream-of-consciousness riffing during his speeches. It has served to turn the race on its head.
Ms. Harris did have a leg up by being bequeathed the infrastructure and funds of the Biden-Harris campaign. She acted quickly to move the moribund Democratic campaign from a backward look at the accomplishments of the Biden-Harris years to a vision of the future. Her choice of Walz, a liberal governor with a next-door-neighbor approach, provided the campaign with a midwestern populist as a balance to the image of a ‘San Francisco liberal” with which the Republicans attempted to portray Harris. Because it was designed to take on Joe Biden, the Trump campaign, scrambling to reorient to a new reality, allowed Harris to control the narrative. Coupled with his sincerity-challenged VP candidate, JD Vance, the comparison of Trump’s campaign with Harris’ after barely a month could not be more profound.
As they say in boxing, differences in styles make for good fights.
A bird’s-eye view of these circumstances leads us to wonder why we are subjected to these nearly perpetual campaigns. Compare this to Great Britain, for example, with a parliamentary system, where election campaigns last six weeks from the time an election is called until voting takes place. The Brits also ban political advertising on TV and radio, instead opting to allocate parties free broadcast slots on these media. They also have been moving to regulate online political ads. (You can find a detailed article on political advertising in the UK here.)
The obvious differences between our electoral system and nations such as Great Britain should not diminish the fact that too much time and money is spent here on political campaigns. It is conceivable that we could place limits on our campaigns that would not hinder the exercise of basic rights such as free speech. Limited campaign seasons would obviate the need for the massive spending and the conjunctive fundraising required to run a campaign. *
No matter the results this November, it is clear a viable argument can be made for shorter election seasons. Parties can still take months to organize workers and volunteers and to build up the necessary campaign infrastructure, but a four-month campaign should be sufficient to present a message to the voters. It may even motivate candidates to sharpen their message and to compete on clearly defined policy positions.
Anyway, that’s my take.
* It is interesting to note that Great Britain limits campaign spending but not fundraising. I will address the topic of money in our politics soon.
If you would like to support my efforts here, consider becoming a paying subscriber for $5.00 per month.
If you don’t wish to become a regular subscriber, consider contributing occasionally by leaving a tip. Click below:
If you would like to submit a piece for 168, please email me at nicrosato2@gmail.com.
And please remember to click the Like button.
We surely don't need year's long political campaigns. But we must recognize that the rich and corporations own one party, the GOP, and money is no object to spending on long campaigns. We also remember that it was Trump's failure to recognize his 2020 loss at the polls that impelled him to continue campaigning since then. Plus we don't have 2 parties any more in reality. We have a cult vs. Democrats in a party. The longer Trump runs, the more he can whine and complain to get donations which he considers his property. As a serial grifter, he never wants to stop getting the income from his sucker backers.
Unlike the UK, Americans have regular scheduled elections, so the influence game never stops. And corporations continually want less regulation so lobby the government in pseudo campaigns all the time. Americans forget politics for most of the 4 year presidential cycles, tending to their own business. Only in the few weeks and days before elections to most think hard about who's running and who to vote for. My opinion is most Americans treat elections as a beauty contest anyway, not weighing all the issues but following their own now interests and voting accordingly. We have no citizen statesment left on the far right, and scant few on the left. So elections are always a crap shoot in a few swing states, but most are locked into their traditional parties and issues: red states into tax savings and strong military; blue states into social issues of the minorities civil rights and cultural issues. That translates into red concerns for inflation increases in food, housing and gasoline prices, blue concerns for cultural openness and healthcare in the main. Actually we are all concerned with all these issues and only for media convenience do we have 'battleground' states, warfare between parties, and treatment of differences to make news keeping media paychecks coming in.
Once upon a time, our yearly tax checkoff donation of $3 for political campaigning was enough to fund the few months between political nation convention and election day. Maybe we should raise the checkoff amount and both limit private donations including those to PACs and cap campaign expenditures as once happened. But corporate leaders and the rich value their access via money to politicians and policies that favor them. It'll be hard to cancel Citizens United that drives this. And we could also limit the months when politicians can use the mail and social media to perpetually and nationally beg for donations, not just for our own States or localities. I'm sick of the nonstop phone calls and i-messages or e-mails asking for money whether I've donated already or not. And they keep track of who gives what and when. Time to call a halt that doesn't infringe on free speech rights of campaigners.