Sideshow Politics

Todd Gitlin writes:

What to do about dispirited campaigns featuring candidates whose golden strategy is alternately to sloganize and muffle themselves, who, moreover, have to push against the grain even to get most citizens to pay attention to a race that is neither glamorous nor apparently urgent, at a time when there are fifty other channels to click to? The trouble goes far beyond the shallowness of debates, as it goes beyond the dirty dance of demagogues and blustery pundits. The core of the problem is intertwined, self-reinforcing: the diminished position of politics in a culture presided over by venal, wildly irresponsible entertainment organizations.

First, a bit of social query. Where are substantial candidates with the brains to recognize social needs, the political judgment to govern, and the talent to connect with the living human beings of this democracy? Where are democratic politicians to come from? The main forces that threw up substantial candidates during most of the twentieth century have lapsed into default. These were: the social aristocracy (the two Roosevelts); the military (Eisenhower); inherited dubious wealth looking to go straight by going civic (Kennedy); the New Deal machine (Johnson); and the parties themselves (Nixon, Humphrey). The two most impressive politicians of the last quarter century were masters of upward mobility from the lower classes, bringing their common touch with them: Reagan and Clinton. But the social aristocracy is dead, the wealthy are mainly busy getting wealthier, the parties are fund-raising machines and otherwise hollow shells, and the lower classes grow up utterly disaffected from politics.

So it comes to pass that both candidates this year are political scions — professional sons. As collective self-government is discredited, the political class has shriveled into a little world whose roots are in itself. Gore, at least, takes politics seriously, affirms that government is instituted among men and women to defend common goals, while the Republican party has nominated a man whose claim to leadership is that he stands for _ leadership! Aside from tax cuts, his idea of government is that he can get things done, never mind which things, never mind that his experience in getting said things done lies in a state whose Democrats are essentially Republicans, so it is not so hard to welcome them into his tent, while his national party spent most of its time of Congressional pre-eminence trying to batter Bill Clinton to a pulp.

But it gets worse. Complaints about the shallowness of the debates miss this essential point: that politics has become a sideshow. No wonder that the candidates of the world's oldest democracy think they have to banter, recall moments of family grief and otherwise convey signs of their private selves so that a confessional-minded citizenry can convince itself that it has "gotten to know" its leaders. The laying on of hands, long the conventional stuff of campaigns, must now also take place in the venues where the people's clowns preside, so that the candidates may try to prove they are fun guys, presentable entertainers-in-chief for the four long years to come, assuring a public far more devoted to its entertainments than to its politics that, if wooden, they can still strike sparks, and if lightweight, can utter whole sentences.

These exhibitions are not exceptional abominations in an otherwise healthy system. Rather, they take us another few more inches down the slippery slope of politics as spectacle. And the fault is not just with the candidates and the hosts. What else is possible from the deep corruption of national politics by an arrogant broadcasting system that has been permitted to arrange the conduct of national elections for its convenience?

How, after all, is the public of a huge, far-flung democracy to inspect its candidates for public office? How is a public that is not especially attentive in the first place to grasp differences in views and the reasons for them? How are they to articulate positions for which they can give reasons, not slogans or sound-bites, and for which they may later be held accountable? How is a candidate to build a public consensus that might help him carry out a program? How else than by the national medium that, like it or not, is the only approximation we have to a public square?

A grown-up democracy would require its broadcast media to supply ample free time during campaigns so that citizens could see and hear their potential leaders speak their piece unedited. The candidates would have to appear in their own persons. Citizens would get to glimpse the candidates convey evidence not just of what they think but how they think.

As it is, corporations that pay nothing at all for their licenses to broadcast on the public airwaves make hundreds of millions of dollars from the sale of political ads. Obviously they have no financial incentive — the only kind they respect — to offer free time to candidates. It goes without saying that the single largest cause of the farcical corruption of national politics by huge donations is the tribute that major parties must pay to the entertainment business.

Or, in the 1996 words of a man who described himself as "a radical": "Money corrupts the political process in America from top to bottom. ... Political campaigns in America have become very expensive affairs. The 30-second spot — and, more and more, the 30-second attack spot — has become the top priority of political campaigns for national office. The average candidate for the United States Senate today spends millions on television spots. Deplorably, as a result, raising those funds has become not just a top priority of our political leaders, but sometimes an obsession, and this is a cancer in our system. ..."

The self-proclaimed radical was one Rupert Murdoch, who, speaking at the National Press Club, offered the leading presidential candidates an hour of free prime time on election eve, as well as minute-long position statements to run in Fox prime time shows, and more time for candidates if the other networks agreed. The other networks, running ahead of Murdoch in the ratings race, declined. The offer came off the table. This year, Mr. Murdoch's more lucrative Fox network declined even to carry one presidential debate.

At this point in the life of the republic, it seems hopelessly retro for candidates to state positions and argue for them, let alone acknowledge difficulties. Might as well expect a singer to make a career as a singer and not a dancer, stripper, or some other kind of video star. We transact our national business as soap opera, and it is no wonder that debates get reviewed more than thoughtfully judged, that theatrics count more than reasoning, and that Oprah, Regis, Jay, and Dave get to play starring roles.

- Todd Gitlin's most recent books are a novel, "Sacrifice," and a social analysis and criticism, "The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars." Long, long ago, in a galaxy far from here, he was the third president of Students for a Democratic Society.