Campaign Finance Reform? Reform this…
I’ve been trying to sort out campaign finance arguments lately. Tough one for me, because I feel strongly that the central government has no business telling me how to spend my money, especially when we are talking about political support. Personally, I feel that it is a bit of a leap to call financial support “free speech” but not enough of a leap to cause me to deny it.
On the other hand, I believe that all too often it is the politician that raises the most money that wins. Among other things, it turns the political process into a popularity contest, where the best looking and speaking guy or gal ends up winning. It reminds me of stereotypical televangelists and slick used car salesman. Is there any wonder why we are frustrated?
So on the one hand, I will not support any effort of the central government to control how I spend my money, particularly when it denies me the right to spend it to support a political candidate. This is a matter of principle to me. On the other hand, I am sick of the impact money has on elections and the political process afterwards. This is a matter of practicality to me more than one of principle. I believe that the process should produce the best man or woman for the job, not just reward the one who can con the most money out of the system.
How do we rectify this?
First of all, I submit that we need to be careful about who frames the arguments and why. I have a theory that most of the issues that we decide at the polls are hijacked by the political system and used as a sort of virtual gerrymandering. Let me explain what I mean:
I spent a month working with the Border Patrol in Laredo, Texas a few years ago. A small task force from my unit was sent there with some helicopters to beef up surveillance along a portion of the Rio Grande and some giant tracts of land around the area. I’ll spare you the details, but my experience there leads me to believe that truly closing that border through any means I have heard suggested is nearly impossible.
Forget whether or not you agree or disagree for a moment, and take a look at how the argument is “framed” and then what happens once the argument is firmly planted in our political process.
First, the argument is framed “properly.” For it to be politically advantageous, it must split America into two nice even chunks. Border security in itself won’t do that. Any knuckle head recognizes that we need secure borders, even if he or she doesn’t realize all the intricacies of why. It’s a matter of principle. So, the argument must be reframed. One way to do that would be to suggest that people who want the southern border secured are racists. They just don’t like Mexicans. And maybe the other side could suggest that people who want open borders really want some kind of borderless, one world socialist order.
Before long, politicians on both sides line up on one side or the other, for or against, and like good sheep we line right up behind them. And because our two party system has the country pretty much divided down the middle, both groups are roughly the same size, with half “for” and half “against” some idea about border security. Both sides work to defeat the other side and win the argument, but most of the votes are already counted before the election. All the politician or party has to do is focus on the few free thinkers (or ignorant) on each side and lure them to their side and the election is won.
As conservatives we have tried to win the arguments that separate us one way: logically, and to our detriment. I’m not sure whether logically minded people tend to migrate toward conservatism, or if conservatism teaches its adherents to think more logically. But one thing is for sure, we aren’t winning with this game plan. Argue that lowering taxes raises revenue all day long, break out your charts and graphs if you want to, but unless you are in a room full of like-minded conservatives all you will get is yawns and glances at watches.
Liberals figured this out a long time ago. Their arguments are always emotional. Just try to logically argue that a fetus is a human being with a pro-abortion liberal. I guarantee that within fifteen minutes, you’ll get hit with the old, “what if you had a daughter that was raped and impregnated…” defense or one like it. Never mind how illogical the argument is, with the canned, “overwhelmingly, most rapes don’t result in pregnancy” retort. The point is that their argument will always resort to emotional ‘what-ifs.’ And you ignore the power of emotions and their role in our decision-making process, if you laugh that person off. Like it or not, unless one is specifically trained, emotions will overpower logic every time when you leave the world of theoretical and get to where the rubber meets the rode.
What does this have to do with campaign finance? For one thing, campaign finance is one of those irreconcilable arguments that only serve to divide us. We’ll divide over this issue until the next new, sexy one comes along. And when we it does, we’ll all line up behind our shepherd and be in real familiar surroundings. Lot’s of familiar faces, I’m sure. The money we spend is used to control the agenda at least as much as anything else.
For another thing, like all the other manufactured issues we will argue about every few years before November, the solution isn’t in Washington. It is at our dinner table. It is in our family room, those few short moments when the TV isn’t on and we are able to hear the still small voice of reason that Ronald Reagan realized spoke to all of mankind, uniting us in the big things.
The solution to the problem of the impact of money on the political process isn’t sourced in solving the argument we have been handed. The solution is to render it unnecessary. And the only way to do that is to ignore the manufactured arguments and issues that the political, entertainment, and media systems produce and get down to principles. Behind all the rhetoric, most of us agree on the big things. And because we agree on principle, the door is open for us to apply those principles to the other arguments (that’s the good thing about principles, by the way). We have to frame the arguments properly, accurately. We need to find ways to do more than hang out at Tea Parties with like minded people, although that is a powerful and important part. We need to reach out to a country that has forgotten, or never knew the principles that form the foundation of our government and culture.
And we need to work from the bottom up rather than from the top down. People need to learn the principles of self governance and then either become or identify candidates that agree to adhere to these principles. People need to know that they have a stake in the results. But most of all, we as a people need to learn how to lead by principle, and not be led by rhetoric. Government works for us. We are the leaders, not the politicians we send to Washington.
When we start to control the agenda and force potential politicians to address them, money won’t impact the system as much. When we hold them accountable for results instead of rhetoric, we’ll see a representative republic again.
