Money Talks

Way back in the dim mists of my college years, I wrote a paper for a political science class on national primaries. When I started my research, I was convinced I would find evidence to support my inclination that they were an excellent idea. After all, what better sign of democracy in action? Let the people choose, not those party bosses in smoke-filled rooms.

By the end of my research, though, I wasn't as certain. Those party bosses usually knew the candidates far better than the voters. They knew their personal foibles, their character, their understanding of the issues, their judgment, their willingness to work hard and question the information they get. That doesn't necessarily mean they chose the best candidate, but at least they had some basis on which to make a decision.

And, at one point, the parties actually stood for something, and the voters then could make their decision at least partly on the party platform.

Now, with every state eager to have influence by putting their primaries early in the season, the selection of a candidate is becoming more and more scary. Who gets attention? People who already are known. People who raise a lot of money. And people who tickle the media's fancy. The front-loading of the primaries results in a choice of candidate well before the general election. What if global conditions change such that someone who looked like a good candidate a year before the election suddenly looks inappropriate by the time the general election rolls around? What if new information comes out about their past that makes them unacceptable to the American public? It seems far better if the choice of a candidate truly were set back closer to the general election.

But, the way elections are set up these days, does it even matter? Do we elect someone based on their actual performance or capabilities? Candidates have become a commodity, sold like cars in appeals to image and emotions, with little basis on reality. It's no wonder that Ross Perot and John McCain had briefly engaged the public. Hungry for some sense of genuineness, voters responded happily to the feeling that someone finally was talking common sense, saying what they mean instead of dancing all around a topic, foregoing substance for appearance.

Of course, even "plain talk" can become a carefully-manufactured image. We tread on shaky ground.

Is this what it comes to? We buy a car because the ads assure us we are adventurous, outdoorsy, sexy, environmentally correct or whatever image we're going for. And we buy a candidate because -- well, we're told people voted for Bush because he was the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with. Polls I saw before the elections showed that, on the majority of the issues, the majority of voters agreed with Bush's opponents. Yet they voted for the guy they'd like to have a beer with, and now we're left judicial appointments and policy changes and a war that most Americans disagree with. And a president with an approval rating below 30 percent.

Maybe next time we should ask, not who we'd like to have a beer with, but who would be better at governing the country. If only we could figure out how to make that judgment.

The ads sell the candidate. Money buys the ads. And the people who give the money hold the influence. No wonder so many American people have turned their backs on the political process in disgust.