IN SUPPORT OF SHORTER CAMPAIGNS

There seems to be a strong correlation between the increasing length of America’s political campaigns unwillingness of America's politicians to this is not coincidence.

The increasing length of campaigns makes fundraising, rather than understanding, articulating and finding solutions to America's problems, the primary qualification for running for office. Predictably, this emphasis on fund raising leaves candidates to depend upon for funding the small minority of Americans (the corporate and economic elite) who own nearly all America's wealth. Also predictably, this arrangement results in public policy that reflects the wishes of the elite rather than the interests of the general population and democracy itself.

The corporate media supports and encourages this approach because it is the primary beneficiary of those campaign funds; funds used by politicians to buy vacuous and misleading TV, radio find newspaper ads. For the media, campaign ads are free money, pure profit, without having to do a bit of work.

In a truly democratic society we would have media democracy, that is, the dispersal and sharing of media power. A democratic media would promote democracy by reporting on and analyzing, from far variety of perspectives, the ideas of candidates. But in America the mainstream media is a profoundly antidemocratic corporate cartel. Along with turning a profit, the media is primarily interested, on behalf of its owners, in consolidating economic, media and political power into fewer and fewer corporate hands.

Thus, the media cartel spends most of its time reporting, not on ideas, but on how much money candidates raise and who is ahead fin the latest polls. And to further distance itself from ideas the media is insatiable in reporting on any hint of a scandal and mud slinging. The print media, to its credit, does offer some meaningful reportage and analysis of candidates’ positions. However, radio and television, the main source of political information for most Americans, is largely limited to sound bites and paid advertising. Sound bit reportage leads to sound bite thinking. And sound bite thinking will not solve the complex problems facing our state, nation and world.

Another major problem with the increasing length of political campaigns is that it eliminates those potential candidates who would best serve the public interest. All but a miniscule per cent of Americans are too busy working to take a year or longer to run for office. Thus, the potential candidate pool is largely limited to those Americans unencumbered by the need to work. That leaves the corporate and economic elite and those already in public office. Those unencumbered by the need to work rarely support the public policies needed to help create an America "with liberty and justice for all."

Not surprisingly, as our nation's candidate pool becomes increasingly limited the range of public policy proposals has become increasingly narrowed. Ideas such as full employment, nationalizing national defense, a single-payer health care system and other ideas that would greatly benefit all Americans are not even considered. They are, in modern political jargon, "off the table.” For all practical purposes one might say that truth, logic, reason, common sense, common decency and democracy itself is off the table. This greatly pleases the ruling class. However, it results in plutocracy and one avoidable tragedy after another for many Americans and for society as a whole.

Nearly every past and current public problem could have been avoided if discussions based on truth, logic, reason, common sense; common decency and democracy were not off the table. Making matters even worse, it seems the longer political campaigns become the more sound bite thinking and sound bite reporting dominate pushing ever further off the table the serious thinking needed for problem solving.

The problem of ever longer political campaigns cannot be solved simply through legislation. Like many problems, this problem is best solved by example. That is why I did not declare my candidacy until the year of the election. Even declaring in late January seemed too early. However, knowing that the corporate media cartel habitually either ignores or marginalizes candidate who dare to fundamentally question the status quo and propose logical, democracy enhancing solutions to our nation's problems, I thought I might need longer than I'd like to break through the censorship and bias of the media to make sure the ideas I support are given a fair and thorough hearing in the court of public opinion.

If our nation practiced media democracy, rather than being dominated by a media cartel, a two month primary campaign followed by a two month general election campaign would be long enough to make sure voters understand a candidate's positions I would suggest, as I have done and will continue to do, that each serious candidate write a series of position papers and statements of philosophy. Preferably, this writing would be done by the candidates, rather than by their array of advisors, speech writers, handlers and other surrogates. These writing could be posted on the internet, say, six months prior to the primary election. They could also, in a cost sharing venture between the candidate and the university of Minnesota Press, be published in form of a small, soft-covered book that could sell for a few dollars and also be available at public libraries. This would go a long way toward eliminating those candidates who seek to reduce political campaigns to fund rising contests or popularity/personality contests or contests based on disingenuous sound bites. These detailed writings would reveal which candidates posses the serious thinking skills needed to serve the public interest.

Lastly, throughout the shortened campaign season free TV and radio time must be given to candidates who meet some basic criteria. Television and radio airwaves belong to the public. they are supposed to serve, not corporate interests, but the public interest. There is no better way to serve the public interest than to improve political campaigns and thus improve American government.