Let's Talk Politics

Let’s Discuss Politics

Our current political discourse sucks. 

 

For months, we have been bombarded with hyper negative attack ads on TV and social media which do nothing but whip up anger and fear among those who unfortunately rely upon those sources for their world views. The result is more parroting than thoughtful, reasoned analysis.

 

I grew up in the era where Walter Cronkite read the evening news on CBS and people stopped to listen to what he had to say. He was trusted by his viewers as were most of the other network anchors. The Federal Communications Commission had a rule called the Fairness Doctrine which mandated that those with federal broadcasting licenses had to be as objective as possible when reporting on the issues of the day. They had to give all the sides of an argument equal time to present their case to the public. Political debates were more robust and nuanced then. This was long before the rise of the internet and the creation of Facebook, Twitter and their ilk. 

 

The Fairness Doctrine and objectivity are out the window with current broadcasting and social media. We now have a Wild West of lies and misrepresentation when candidates buy time to pitch themselves to the voting public. There is little debate and less opportunity for ordinary folks to sit down, one on one, with candidates to discuss what matters to them. 

 

Newspapers have struggled to keep up their important role informing the public. When we moved back to Wisconsin in 1979, Milwaukee had two major papers. Madison did as well. The morning and evening editions provided different opinions on the news, letting the readers choose what to believe. There were multiple smaller papers aimed at specific communities that covered more local interests and viewpoints.  The Sunday papers were full of well written, in depth news and opinion pieces. Now the news is found in snippets sandwiched in between pages of ads. Once competing papers have merged and the merged ones bought up by national chains which have let local news slide. 

We now have handlers telling the candidates what to say and what to avoid when speaking publicly. Messaging is coordinated by people whose identities are never disclosed and heavily influenced by anonymous contributions from sources with specific axes to grind. It has become increasingly difficult to parse out where some candidates truly stand on the issues of the day or if they have hidden agendas to spring on us after the election is over.

 

Those who pride themselves on being “independent” have their work cut out for them trying to get to a decision on which way to cast their ballot. The internet promised Information age has truly let them down as well.

 

We have been reduced to competing messages about what should be important to likely voters. Is crime in the streets a real concern? Does it win out over reproductive freedom and a woman's right to choose? Is the economy headed towards a recession or can we afford to fix the devastating impacts of climate change? Do we take care of those who cannot take care of themselves or are we a nation of personal responsibility? Are we a Christian nation or one where all religious beliefs are tolerated? Are Caucasians the superior race or just one of many? Is it OK to love someone with whom you share similar gender attributes or who have different skin tones?

 

The upcoming election cycle has put some of these issues in stark relief and made the choice of who gets your vote a little easier. Unfortunately, we have had to ferret out these things from a mass of negativity and to dig far deeper than necessary to figure out where the candidates really stand.

 

It would be great if we had a system like the one in Canada where election campaigns are limited to six weeks and spending is limited. It would be much better if Election Day is a national holiday.