WASHINGTON, D.C., October 27 -- With this year's Presidential election, we've hit a new low, in my lifetime at least. The choices available are so bad, I can't stomach any of them.
Can't vote for George W. Bush, because he's such a dunce. His father used to drive me nuts -- but by comparison with W., George Sr. looks like Winston Churchill.
Can't vote for Al Gore, because of his endless grandstanding on the environment. If elected, he'll lock up so much Western land that anyone who owns a dirt bike might as well sell it for scrap. (I'm as big an environmentalist as anyone -- but the US Forest Service's Roadless Initiative and the Clinton-Gore administration's "Wilderness Lite" land grab are the most wrongheaded environmental policy initiatives I've ever seen. They're a way of scoring easy political points with urbanites who've never actually been to a national forest yet can't stand the idea that somewhere, a motorcyclist is having fun riding in the desert and maybe kicking up a rooster tail of dirt in the process. Gore wants to penalize those of us who actually live in the affected areas by restricting our access to public lands we have every right to visit. Given the minimal impact that off-highway vehicles actually have on environmental quality, there is no rational reason for these policies. So anyhow, Gore's out.)
Martin Sheen would make a much better chief executive than anyone on the ballot, judging from his performance on TV.
Can't vote for Ralph Nader, because although his heart is in the right place, he's simply got his facts wrong on too many issues. This has been the case ever since he first jumped into the spotlight with his campaign against the Corvair (one of the best cars we ever had, in the Kafalas stable). More recently, his posturing on the Microsoft breakup issue (in favor of breaking up the company, but for the wrong reasons) again showed that he just does not grasp the issues -- he can parrot what his staff has fed him, but actual thinking is beyond him.
Can't vote for Pat Buchanan or that Libertarian guy, for reasons that should be obvious. I don't think Gus Hall (longtime Communist Party candidate) is still around, so he's not an option, either.
So the Presidential race is a no-go this year. I've told a few people that I plan to write in Martin Sheen, since he'd make a much better chief executive than anyone on the ballot, judging from his performance on TV. But whether I actually vote for him or leave the ballot blank depends on how motivated I'm feeling on Election Day.
I do plan to go to the polls, but that's largely because there are several important ballot initiatives up for consideration here in Arizona. I'm going to vote No on every one of them, with the possible exception of Proposition 202, an anti-sprawl initiative that's been the target of a multimillion-dollar attack campaign by real-estate interests (that alone suggests that it's probably a good bill; but I'm still undecided as to whether I think it'll be effective in the fight against sprawl).
Air is free, so why not air time?
All of which is to say that Campaign 2000 hasn't exactly been an inspiring exercise. However, one major issue has been discussed that deserves more than the lip service it has received from the major-party candidates. I'm talking about campaign finance reform.
Now, I know what you're thinking: This issue's already been beaten to death. Well, no, it hasn't. Everyone talks about it, but they're all barking up the wrong tree, by trying to put controls on how much money candidates and political organizations can spend. This is a can of worms no one's ever going to get staightened out -- because it's very difficult to prevent money from doing what it wants to do. When you squeeze it in one place, it pops out somewhere else. If you can't spend money as an individual, you spend it through a PAC. If you can't spend it directly, you spend it as "soft money." And so on.
But I've got a suggestion no one's brought up, which would instantly overcome the problem of excessive money in politics, without goring anyone's ox -- except, as you'll see, that of the broadcasting industry.
Giving free air time to everyone on the ballot wouldn't magically fix the American political system -- but it would reduce the stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have over political discourse.
The way to ensure that everyone gets a fair hearing is to require that every radio and TV station, in order to keep its FCC broadcast license, must give free air time to every candidate on the ballot for statewide and national office.
(As a tie-in to this idea, I'd suggest attaching a string to the air time: The candidate must appear by himself or herself on a blank set, with no background images or music.)
The problem with our present campaign system -- the reason it needs to be "reformed" -- is that moneyed interests are able to buy so much air time that their messages swamp those of anyone with less cash on hand.
Free air time would solve this problem, to a large extent, by enabling less well-heeled candidates to have their say, repeatedly, during the campaign. I'd suggest allocating 15 minutes of every hour of prime time, between Labor Day and Election Day, for political advertising. If that's more politics than you can stand, we could make it five or ten minutes of every hour.
This simple idea would allow every candidate to get his/her face in front of the voters. Candidates would be free to buy additional time, because the courts have ruled that money equals "free speech" -- that is, to restrict the amount of ads a candidate can buy constitutes illegal censorship. (I would argue the courts are full of beans, but I don't have judicial robes in my closet.) But that's not so important; what's important is that every candidate, not just the ones hand-picked by millionaires and big business, would get plenty of time to talk directly to the voters, in prime time.
Giving free air time to everyone on the ballot wouldn't magically fix the American political system -- but it would go a long way toward reducing the stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have over political discourse.
Copyright © 2000 John J. Kafalas
Feedback? Send in a letter
to the editor, and I'll post it on-line!