I woke this morning, like many others, to a rash of political postings from both sides of the endless debate.  Today’s share of the mud, ready to be slung, full force, in the opposite direction.  As it is on every other day, the message is on the people, the personalities, the remarks made, in and out of context, today and at some point in the past.  It is not on the issues, the challenges we face, the proposals, the solutions the candidates have offered.  It’s been so long since I’ve seen anything along those lines that I wonder if anyone even knows a position from their preferred candidate on any of it, beyond perhaps a passing headline here or there.

My belief is that, for the most part, even the most fervent of people posting remarks on behalf of their preferred candidate today are well aware that their comments are having no effect on the audience receiving them (who made up their mind individually months ago, in all probability), but they are doing so as a reaction to the fear and anxiety that perhaps the opposing candidate may actually win.  What does it say that such fear is present in a process that should ideally be a choice between two equally qualified candidates?

What has happened to the electoral process?  It feels like we’ve ended up with two choices no one wants, and those who might be reasonable choices could be afraid to run for office given the scrutiny and unyielding assault that is part of the process itself.

At the time Richard Nixon famously failed the test of the first televised debates, it changed the landscape of what would be required of presidential candidates from there forward.  Today, the microscope of public attention is even more intensely focused on every word, every action, every phrase, to the point where anything a candidate has said or done is subject to immediate criticism and widespread public attack through the mechanism of social media.  It is a much more intense incarnation of what Nixon encountered in 1960, and I would argue that we have yet to find a solution.  I say this because today’s electoral process has yet to surface a healthy way for qualified candidates to engage without being discouraged to participate in the first place.  In 1960, the solution seemed relatively simple and cosmetic in nature, insofar as a candidate prepared to be on camera and it seemed like the impact of television was largely contained.  Today it is far more severe, with everything being monitored 24 hours a day, thrown under a microscope, analyzed, spun and represented as a means to disparage or discredit an opposing candidate at every possible opportunity.  Facts are subject to the way in which they are presented, rarely checked.  Positions are rarely established or understood.  Personalities are the focus of attention.  Shouldn’t we want and expect more?

What is more concerning is the share of the population who seem eager to jump on the bandwagon and support the way in which things work, rather than question whether the way in which we are evaluating a critical decision for our leadership has gone significantly far from criteria and inputs that matter.  Certainly in the history of presidential elections there are many instances where someone was elected in the pre-television/pre-media driven era when candidates were elected whose character may have, by current standards, been considered largely inadequate.  It would be interesting to know how many such instances exist where the commonly held understanding of that same President was actually largely that they were a good and successful leader for the country.

Process aside, my concern is actually on the larger effect all this is having on us as a country and society.  The political process, as driven through the media and campaigns influencing it, is undoubtedly polarizing and purposefully so.  We are being driven to extremes for the express purpose of seeing certain candidates as a threat, as extreme, and as distinct and different from the one we are meant to support as possible.  It’s not a difficult strategy to understand.  The more similar the candidates seem, the more of an actual choice needs to be made and the more people really need to consider the options and the issues.  The more polarized the audience is, the more fear and hate that can be inspired, the more the electorate may base their decisions on emotion and skip the rational evaluations that could otherwise lead to a closer and more thoughtful debate.  Does emotion play a role?  Absolutely, of course, yes, as does character and the personality and behavior of the candidates.  It is, however, not the only and sole criteria upon which such an important decision should be made.  What is the most frightening of all is the degree to which we’ve been subjected to the messaging for such a long period of time that it has become an accepted form of discourse and behavior, and it’s simply not the right way to arrive at an informed choice on who should lead the country.

My simple belief is that there are more people in this country who are tolerant than not.  I believe there are more people in the center of the moral and political spectrum than on the extreme end points.  I believe there is more source for agreement than disagreement.  For civility and not for conflict.  So why is it that, as we navigate through the political process, that we are so caught in the end points and not in the center?  Why are the candidates presented as extremes and not representative leaders of the population they are meant to serve?  Is it purely to pander to the interests of those who are at those extremes or is it to draw a distinction between their views and those of other candidates in the process, whether from the same or opposing party?  Does it operate in this fashion because our collective attention span is so short and distracted that we’ve actually lost the ability to engage in a meaningful, respectful, and thoughtful debate on the issues?  If all the candidates are truly so extreme, doesn’t it mean the process itself is failing to provide us with a representative leader for our government?

In sitting down to write this morning, I didn’t have an end in mind.  I didn’t have a candidate to advocate.  I simply had frustration and sadness.  We are better than this political process we are now living in.  We are more unified than divided.  It is what has and continues to make our country strong and great.  Our unity and diversity both.  Our ability to find common ground and work towards the greater good.

The political process in this country is fundamentally broken and, in every way that we continue to support and enable its dysfunction, we are allowing it to continue.  Maybe there is nothing we can do about it this time, but we will never change that which we accept and condone through our actions.  There has to be a better way, there has to be a civil and informed way to elect our leaders.  My hope is that we find a better way soon.  For the good of our country, and all of us who stand in the center, wondering how we became so divided and extreme.

-CJG 10/09/2016