Neff Zone Column

Print Edition: September 16, 2006

MY KIND OF ELECTION

Since my rants about the state of politics in our country, which spanned six columns during July and August, many readers have taken the time to comment to me about the issues I raised.

While many agreed with my points, several said (in effect): "OK, wise guy, so you think the political system is a mess. Specifically, what would you like to see done so we can elect better leaders."

I’ve often replied that I already wrote a column on that topic, to which the universal response has been, ‘we never saw it.’ That’s probably because said column was just the third Neff Zone piece (we’re now on column 106), way back in September of 2004 prior to the presidential election.

However, what I said back then still holds true and coincidentally applies not only to national elections but to state elections as well, like the current Michigan governor’s race.

So, if you’ll allow me to dip into the archives (and with a little updating here and there), this is what I said then and say now.

If you’re like me, you’re already sick and tired of the current elections. Modern campaigns have turned into nothing more than mud-slinging, personal attack ads, and convoluted fact manipulation. It doesn’t matter if you’re Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, the whole process has become a national embarrassment.

Just once, before I die, I’d like to see an election that doesn’t make me feel like I’ve been coated in slime from the grease trap of a cheap roadside diner. Instead, in my semi-perfect election, this is what I would like to see:

The candidates would meet face-to-face in private before campaigning ever begins. They would agree to treat each other with civility and dignity and to allow no personal attacks in their campaigns. No name calling, no fact distortion, no petty nitpicking.

The candidates would agree to a set amount to be spent on campaigning. It would be a modest figure, so the candidates would be forced to manage their advertising carefully. This would give voters a chance to see each candidate construct and manage a budget.

Having agreed on these points, the candidates would appear on television together and publicly explain the format to the voting public. At that time, they would also tell all the political action committees, corporations, and lobbyists that no outside funds would be used in the election. They would call on those soft money interests to use the millions normally waste on campaign ads on more productive things, like health care for employees and research and development. Special interests that did not heed the candidates’ call would be branded anti-American, and the voters would know who their real friends were.

The campaign would last six weeks – period. During that time, each candidate would submit four position pieces to begin the campaign and one additional position piece each week (ten in total) to all media (newspapers, television, radio, internet). Any media wishing to publish the pieces would do so verbatim. Each piece would adhere to the same format: identify an issue, explain why it is important to the citizens, explain the candidate’s position, and detail how that position will be implemented. This would force each candidate to thoughtfully craft and explain his/her philosophy on the most important issues facing the country or state. At the same time, it would provide the voters with solid in-hand material upon which to base their votes.

The candidates would meet each week for televised conversations. These would differ from debates in that there would be limited input by moderators, rather the conversations would feature just the two candidates discussing (back and forth) one or more of the issues presented in their respective position pieces. The conversations would have a respectful tone and no raised voices would be allowed. On occasion, one would hope, these conversations might result in agreement on a particular issue, thus taking that issue off the table for the remainder of the election period. More importantly, voters would be able to see how the candidates compare with one another in terms of intellectual acumen.

Regardless of the results of the election, the candidates would appear on the podium for the inauguration. The winner would be magnanimous to the loser, and the loser would be gracious to the winner. Afterwards, there would be no lavish victory celebration, no dinners at $5000 a plate, no fancy black-tie events. The candidates would have agreed before hand that the first act of the winner should not be to squander millions of dollars on an unseemly coronation.

Such an election, for a change, would showcase the best that democracy has to offer, both for the citizens of our country and for the world at large. Instead of dismissing voters as ignorant rabble willing to swallow any shallow campaign promise, it would empower voters to think, question and measure, a respect not shown in my lifetime. I suspect, too, that such an election would spur a fervor of cooperation and problem solving unseen since the nation was founded. Just once, before I die, I’d like to see an election that pulls America up rather than drags America down.

Postscript: If you want the unbridled truth about national and state issues, there’s no better place than Anneberg Political Fact Check www.factcheck.org , a nonpartisan, nonprofit, consumer advocate for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and it monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases.

Jim Neff is a local columnist. Comments to neffzone@gmail.com. Read Neff Zone columns online at www.neffzone.com/cadillacnews.