Basically, We're Screwed

Bob Schiffer made a couple of closing comments today worth thinking about. He said that governing has become a short interval between campaigns, and that if competitors go after each other tooth and nail, they kill not the opponent but the sport (actually he used the Burger King and McDonald's analogy).

Campaigns have been getting longer and longer. Earlier primaries, would-be presidential candidates beginning their run two years or more before elections. I remember when the primary was in May. Isn't that plenty of time for the nominee to campaign before November? If in the days before the internet, before cable television, television itself, even before radio, May primaries were thought to be fine, why is it different now?

Politics is close to the NFL as the national blood sport. In money spent and taken in it exceeds the NFL (my guess). Campaign spending has created a whole new industry in the economy, an industry of fund-raisers, pollsters, campaign managers and staff, advertising agencies, media. Is that healthy?

When the president was sworn in January 20, 2009, attacks were continuing by those claiming the president was not constitutionally quaified for office; those were not just a handful of cranks but were joined by probably 5% of the population. After a month or so, other attacks began with loud resolutions to replace the president in the next election. Some of course were urging removal by other means. It was a very short honeymoon, 30-days max.

How does all this affect governing? It hurts it.

1. It makes for a more divisive, disagreeable relationship between parties. It means that any incumbent hoping for re-election has to take every action with an eye to a far off campaign, and that the disloyal opposition is always on the attack. All of which we have seen, are seeing. A hamstrung Congress.

2. Always campaign skills are not the same skill-set needed to do the job. The best potential president, for example, did not run or was eliminated at an early stage and certainly never got to the point of nomination. We are left with the smooth voices, the pleasant faces and bodies, tha ability to say what is profitable to say. (In Romney's case that may not be enough.)

3. When there is a winner (I hate to use that word here; maybe "loser" would be more accurate, the loser being the one elected, except that the real loser is the citizenry) he takes office moving his campaign staff into the White House where they advise on every decision, making every presidential term a perpetual campaign. Just as we have created a whole industry to manage and advertise and report on campaigns, we are actually being governed by campaign managers under new titles.

4. In the legislature, the bigger part of an incumbent's job is glad-handing supporters and courting lobbyists and campaign contributors. All decisions are made with a view to money and votes.

What can you do about this? A single six-year term for president is one thing.   Single four-year terms for the House.   Moving all primaries to a later date is another. Limits on campaign spending. All of which would require constitutional amendments.    Fat chance.

Basically, we're screwed.