The Supreme Court's recent decision which will now permit corporations--and unions, although with far less resources--to contribute unlimited funds for political campaigns, and the outrage it is provoking by the liberal press reminds me of a comment attributed to Mahatma Ghandi when he first visited England. "What do you think of civilization, Mr. Ghandi?" someone asked as he looked over the bustling streets of London. "I think it would be a good idea," Ghandi replied. Had he visited the New York City of 2010, he might have said the same thing when asked: "What do you think of democracy?"
The Supreme Court may have made a bad decision in concluding that corporations have the same right as citizens to exercise "free speech," that is, the right to influence elections by trying to "buy them," but despite the McCain-Feingold Act, campaign spending laws and contribution limits have hardly had any significant effect on the amount of money that is being poured into elections these days. The question in my mind is not that there will be no limit on the money spent to elect a candidate of the corporations' choice, but will it make a difference from what is happening now?
The sad farce that has been played by Congress over the past year disguised as "health care reform" is an example of what can happen when the electorate allows itself to be manipulated by two of the most dangerous emotions to the democratic process: fear and ignorance. Educating for democracy means educating the citizens to arm themselves against the distortions and outright lies that they are deluged with in place of reasoned, honest presentations of the candidates' positions enabling the voters to decide whom to vote for in terms of their interests and deep convictions.
In the late 30's and early 40's a series of movies directed by Frank Capra depicted the political landscape of the United States not much differently than what we see today. Corruption, control of the media, and distortions of the truth were about to overwhelm our average American citizen, sympathetically played by Jimmy Stewart and Gary Cooper. But at the end of the movie, the good guys win! Mr. Smith triumphs in Washington! Unfortunately, from a critical point of view, the probability is remote that a corrupt political official's conscience would force him to admit the truth in public or that "the people" would rally around their maligned hero.
The only reason "negative ads" work in political campaigns is that people are either unwilling to inform themselves of the facts behind the ad or do not understand that it is a "civic duty" for them to do so. That is, along with the privilege of voting the voter should feel the obligation, the "civic responsibility," to know as much of the facts about the candidates as possible in order to vote as an " informed citizen." I wonder what has happened to those "civics" courses that used to be taught in high school? Perhaps they still are, but the lessons taught are not being learned.
In What's the Matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank discusses the transformation of a state that once was a hotbed of left-wing social activism into a fiefdom for right-wing politicians. They were able to win overwhelming support from the very people their policies harmed by distracting them with social issues such as abortion or gay rights. This doesn't mean necessarily that people who are about to have their home taken away by a bank would not vote for a politician backed by the bankers if they felt that their religious beliefs were more important than their economic well-being. But at least they should do so with an understanding of the consequences of the candidate's policies to their own way of life.
Thomas Jefferson argued for a free press as a key element in the preservation of democracy under the assumption that there would be a sufficient number of educated readers to understand the issues reported in that press. But the United States seems to be suffering from a "dumbing down" trend not only in education where standardized tests are crowding out the rest of the curriculum; but in the political process. Recent elections seem to show a decline in the capacity of the average citizen to process information in a way that can be enlightening, not confusing. That a recent report stated that the average school-aged youngster in this country spends eight hours a day involved in some form of computer-base devices, much of them dedicated to mindless entertainment, is not reassuring. However, there are some signs of hope that money and its influence cannot always buy an election, or at least not that easily.
The recent report that Mayor Bloomberg spent over $100 million on his Mayoral campaign and barely squeaked by with a win against a fairly weak opponent is heartening news. He outspent Bill Thompson, the former comptroller, by a 14-1 ratio and yet barely got a majority of the vote. Imagine what might have happened if a stronger candidate had run against Bloomberg? He might have won spending even less than Thompson. But regardless, the Mayor's failure to get the "bang for the bucks" he spent might augur a future in which people actually bother to find out the truth about the issues on which they are voting instead of assuming that political commercials are the best way to be educated about politics.