![]() TW3 Home Review It! New Voices Virtual Ink Colette's List Departure Lounge Kill Your TV Permeable Looking Glass Reel Politik The Scarlet Pumpernickel Pink Cadillac The Bookstall A Word To Publishers Review Copies |
ANOTHER SUPER TUESDAY HAS COME AND GONE, and as the dust settles it becomes apparent that both the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations have once again been captured by the candidates most capable of raising large amounts of ready cash (both "soft" and "hard") and using "hired guns" to attack opponents and manipulate television imagery. Notwithstanding a valiant effort by insurgent John McCain, the results of the present presidential primary contests appear to bear out Jules Witcover's stark assessment of the current system as "a process crippled by antiquated rules and procedures, and preyed on by moneyed interests and an array of political mercenaries whose Holy Grail is winning at all costs." Witcover's assessment, from No Way to Pick a President: How Money and Hired Guns Have Debased American Elections, is grounded in his coverage of every presidential campaign since 1952. As such, Witcover is able to chronicle radical changes in the process for electing a president, in rich, anecdotal detail. His descriptions of people and events are often as humorous (in a depressing sort of way) as they are scathing. He describes Ross Perot, for example, as an individual of great wealth attempting to "purchase the presidency" or at least gain entry into an election process that personal experience would never otherwise have earned him. Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire is described as a "vacuous non-entity" hoping to use his state's first-in-the-nation primary as a springboard to the presidency. President Clinton is described as the "first political consultant" to actually become president. Using a storytelling style, he describes strolling down Main Streets of small mining towns in West Virginia with Senator John F. Kennedy during the 1960 presidential primary season. He contrasts this scene with the current system of candidates relentlessly pursuing cash, using high-tech mass media attacks against opponents, and engaging in an orgy of no-holds-barred personal combat with opposing candidate and their political handlers. The result of these changes, according to Witcover, included a loss of confidence in the electoral system evidenced by larger and larger numbers of voters boycotting the polls at election time, and a reluctance on the part of the most distinguished potential candidates (such as Colin Powell) to even seek the presidential nomination. It is difficult to disagree with Witcover's ultimate conclusion that the current system has "gone berserk." One must question, however, various premises underlying both his assessment of the current situation, as well as his recommendations for reform. Initially, Witcover appears to present the changes occurring in the system over the past 50 years as being uniformly pernicious. While the campaigns of 1956 and 1960 may have not been accompanied by the current emphasis on money, television and hired guns, they were certainly not devoid of personal attacks and allegations of electoral impropriety. Further, it is difficult to pine for the good old days when presidential candidates were often chosen by party elite, based upon deals made in proverbial smoke-filled rooms. Witcover also arguably overstates the degree to which presidential elections are currently dictated by money, television and political handlers. While Senator McCain has fallen short in his bid to overcome the money-laden, establishment-anointed George W. Bush, the Republican primary election potentially could have turned out differently were it not for ill-advised attacks by the McCain campaign against the Christian Right. Further, a review of presidential elections over the past 25 years demonstrates that "outsider" candidates, including Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and, arguably, Bill Clinton, were elected despite possessing fewer funds and enjoying less media exposure than their well-connected rivals. Witcover suggests a number of reforms aimed at restoring "integrity" to the system. Various of these suggestions, including elimination of the Electoral College (a system he describes as an "accident waiting to happen") and reducing the costs associated with TV time, are difficult to contest. Other suggestions, such as discouraging negative advertising (a practice we say we hate, yet is very effective) and banning "soft" money, face potentially insurmountable social, political and constitutional barriers.
In the end analysis, while Witcover may be accused of glorifying a bygone political era and/or presenting an overly pessimistic view of the current state of affairs, he offers a detailed and persuasive account of where we came from and how we got to where we are today. Also, perhaps more importantly, Witcover's stark analysis contributes to the first step necessary for change -- a sense of public outrage over the status quo.
Mark Kendall is an attorney practicing in Phoenix. He is also a Ph.D. candidate in polituical science at the School of Justice Studies, Arizona State University. He is completing his dissertation on the subject of the use of rhetorical strategies by American social movements in the 20th century. He describes himself as a political junkie who finds the 2000 election more stimulating than espresso.
Buy The Book?
The Guest Shot Archive: A Not Entirely Disinterested Service of Bancroft & Associates: Digital Publishers |