…Biggest Problem, Greatest Failure…

To: From: Subject:

Dr. Reinhard; Anyone Else Who Cares Heather Phillips …Biggest Problem, Greatest Failure…

When asked what I think the American political system’s biggest problem/greatest failure is, the first thing that comes to my mind is…low standards. The American public sets low standards for what it expects from itself as far as active political involvement is concerned and low standards for its leaders when it comes to holding them accountable for their actions (or lack of them.) Why does this happen? In a word—time.

In order to really know what politicians are doing and how they are motivated, a person has to devote an enormous amount of time and energy to really investigate. You have to read articles from all different perspectives so you know which special interest is asking for what from whom. You have to listen to different news sources. You have to read transcripts from actual legislative sessions and read actual proposed bills and amendments. Not only is the language in these documents very far from conversational speech, actually finding the documents to begin with (even in the internet age) is definitely not easy or intuitive. Besides, unless it’s your chosen career to stay on top of the full political spectrum those kinds of activities can easily deprive you of having an actual life. You know—that thing the politicians are supposed to be trying to make better for everyone?

At the time our nation was founded, the concept of “leisure time” as we know it was basically unheard of. Farmers, craftsmen, tradesmen, even wealthy land owners worked when the work needed to be done and not during any set hours of the day. If something came up (a visitor, a fire, a loose cow, a political debate or pamphlet) they would simply break from work when they needed to and get back to it as time and energy allowed. That flexibility granted them opportunity to ponder and debate with their neighbors and peers, and hear and meet actual candidates. The idea we have now that work and home should be separate and that half the day should be allotted for each would have seemed crazy to them. I think there’s a good reason for that.

With the advent of industrialization came the need for factory workers who would stay in the same place for long periods of time. Naturally, abuses occurred and protective activists rallied support for putting limits on the amount of time an individual could be expected to be “at work”. Thus evolved our modern concept of the eight hour day.

The trouble with that idea is that the eight hours we are expected to be at work doesn’t really make up all the time that our jobs require. Decent, affordable housing is usually well outside the city limits. Even in relatively small towns, it’s not unusual for people to have 45-90 minute commutes from work to home and vice-versa. Add in an hour for lunch and you are talking about a twelve hour day just for work. At home there is just enough time to manage the very basic necessities (shopping, cleaning, bathing, dinner) before sleep.

Couple the long hours with the overwhelming amount of entertainment and marketing stimulus pointed into our homes, and it’s no wonder the average citizen relies on “someone else” to be responsible for monitoring and working out our political problems.

Sure, two or three days a year we think about voting and we try to vote well. Where do we get the information we rely on to help us make informed decisions? Commercials, paid political advertisements, political parties, or some other interest group we may identify with. We might trust some sources more than others, but even then what you’re getting is still just someone else’s opinion. What you’re not getting is all the stuff that will really tell you if this is someone you want to hire to manage the affairs of the nation.

What’s their full voting record? Who are they getting money from? Do they walk the way they talk? Have they practiced good business ethics in other areas of their lives? Are they people of good character? And most importantly, what do they really believe? After all, no one can get elected if they alienate sections of their constituency so they pay lots of money (money people with special interests have given them in return for later favors) to campaign managers and speech writers to shape their images. “Shaping their image” usually means making them a) as bland as possible so they won’t offend anyone and b) as much like their opponents as possible so they won’t lose voters to the other side.

Who are they really? Are they the good guys or the bad guys? If they get caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar (or even just building $500 million dollar “bridges to nowhere”) what consequences do they face? I mean, have you ever heard of a politician going to court…and then actually going to jail? Don’t get me wrong, I think that most people start out in politics for the right reasons and with their hearts in the right places. We have let our political system devolve, though, to the point where most of the public really feels the election process is a charade, and they vote for the lesser of two evils rather than for someone they feel they can really trust. What’s the most fundamental difference between the two candidates? Who is giving them money and why.

The reason that “outside investors” play such a large role in our current political system is that voters are very hard to reach and even harder to persuade. Candidates need huge amounts of money to wage successful campaigns. Local political groups won’t even consider a candidate for mayor until they can show that they can raise enough money to be competitive. Fortunately, there are opportunities for us to influence the course of politics. The status quo can be upset. We do have a louder voice than the money, but most of us just aren’t saying anything.

Years of vicious political fighting have split the nation so much that large numbers of us coming together in accord on even such basic issues seems like a fairy tale. That’s going to have to change for real political reform to happen. We have to decide amongst ourselves as citizens what our priorities are and make it clear to our leadership what we do and do not think is acceptable practice. We have to raise our collective standards. We have to expect more of ourselves and of our leaders. After all, you have to play the game to win it, and right now most of us just don’t have the time.