The Best of Times and the Worst of Times for Candidates Running for the Presidency of the United States

Stewart Richland

A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in. H. L. Mencken

The 1950’s brought us television and with it the beginning of the end to the type of radio broadcasting we were used to.  Then came the transistor radio and other pocket devices which provided us with portable entertainment.  Out went the VCR, 8-track and in came the CD and DVD, along with a portable computer and now you really could be entertained 24 hours a day.  Then Apple introduced their I-Phone and with it instant communications.  Finally, there is the social media net work.  Millions of people are tweeting their comments about themselves, others using Face Book, insta-gram, blogs and such to keep us informed about things we are not really interested in.  Yesterday Fox News had a seven minute segment about the do’s and don’ts of using a cell phone in a movie theater.    They even had two experts, one who wrote a book about movie etiquette, discussing this “very, very important issue.”  (said with tongue-in-cheek).

All of these inventions have dramatically changed our habits and how we view the world in which we live.  What has not changed is how our national campaigns have replaced Barnum and Bailey’s “Greatest Show on Earth.”  

Henry B. Eyring observed: “We live in a world where finding fault in others seems to be the favorite blood sport. It has long been the basis of political campaign strategy. It is the theme of much television programming across the world. It sells newspapers.

The newspaper was the medium that most Americans used to keep in touch with local and national events.  The Fourth Estate was so influential that William Randolph Hurst could boast that his “Yellow Journalism” had provoked the United States into declaring war on Spain.  Hurst and Joseph Pulitzer controlled more than 50 newspapers and magazines in the major cities of the United States.

I can recall as a young person growing up in New York, that every candy store had a display of morning, afternoon and evening editions of at least a dozen daily news publications.  In most cases the newspaper editorial policies were pro-Republican or pro-Democrat.  In addition, there were many ethnic newspapers catering to Jews and Italians that also provided their readers with political information.  

The other source of news for Americans was the radio.  The radio brought the news to those who lived in rural America and as more and more radio stations began to take to the air waves. Americans could now get their news almost as it happened, but with little analysis.  

A majority of Americans depend on the national media for their information on political events.  However, there is a dwindling number of competitive news media sources that are willing to provide information about new parties and their candidates. With the vast reduction in the number of newspapers and consolidation of all news media sources into the hands of just a few major corporations, which are closely interlocked with the major financial institutions who have a strong interest in perpetuating the status quo, there is very little opportunity for a new political “brand” to break through the media barrier.

The majority of Americans now depend on the television news outlets for their news.  Without these outlets the American voter would virtually be shut out of what is going on in this election cycle.  The problem here is that  four of the major news presenters are quite liberal in their programming, leaving Fox as the one station presenting the conservative position.  Most informed viewers depend on these outlets for information.

Many of the candidates thrive on TV coverage.  TV is vital to the candidate.  It provides  them the outlet to get their message out to the voting public.  Debates between the candidates are important because the viewer sees them in real time.  Town Hall meetings in which one candidate is questioned by some TV personality provide another venue for their candidacy. Stump speeches are vital to a candidate for getting their ideas to the voter.  Look at the huge crowds that Trump and Sanders attract to their rallies.  This is great TV and the stations love it because of the commercial revenues they glean from these events.  I think that  the media has lost the will to dig deeper because of their political leanings.  We have candidates running today that have done things that suggest that their character is in question. Yet the media, which in my opinion, is overly biased toward the Liberal-Democratic position have been very reluctant to at least bring these issues forward and allow the voters decide if the candidate is trustworthy or not.

Presidential candidates always want to show case their families.  They humanize themselves to the voter to show they are like regular folks. At every event the candidate has their spouse or another member of their family waving, shaking hands and leading the audience in applauding.  Now we have the self-ie. Everyone wants to take a selfie with the candidate. They want their shirts and hats signed by the candidate. In the April edition of the Reporter Irv Rikon’s article Two Specific Proposals for Presidential Campaigns  I disagree with his premise that candidates do not have the opportunity to lay out their programs without interruption.  Every news reporter  is constantly having the candidates on their shows asking them questions, and giving them the opportunity to present their programs to resolve the major issues we face in the country. 

Mr. Rickon would like the candidates to use C-Span as forum to present their case. Not  a good idea.  Virtually no one watches C-Span. It is unrealistic to think that candidates for the presidency would make a presentation to Congress on the major issues that the nation faces let alone lay out their plans for the solution of these problems.  It is the voters that the candidate must convince not the 525 members of Congress. No candidate will ever divulge who their choice for VP will be so far in advance of the National Nominating Convention.  The selection of a VP is politically driven.  Often it is a person with great charm and has an acceptable image with the electorate.  In many instances a VP comes from another section of the nation giving the ticket a balanced image or from a state that has a large electoral voting bloc.  No candidate would publicaly disclose the names of those they would like to have as Cabinet members prior to being elected.  In today’s world, the President has his Cabinet and also a staff of advisers.  The term “Kitchen Cabinet” is an anachronism.  The President could have some close friends that may offer advise but not as a general policy. As far as selecting a candidate for the Supreme Court, the President puts together a research committee for this and asks for a list of names and then the candidates are vetted very carefully before they make a selection.

I agree with Mr. Rikon that Republican primaries are tilted towards Conservative candidates because most Republicans are Conservative.  The same can be said for the Democratic primaries.  Hillary Clinton is a liberal that is running left of center on most issues.  Bernie Sanders is a Socialist which puts him far to the left of Clinton.  That’s the nature of both political parties.

According to the rules established by both political parties, each state sets the dates for their primary elections.  It does not make a difference if 10 or even 20 states from different sections of the country hold their primaries on the same day.  It is the message of the candidate that sways the voters of the state. The ultimate power for the selection of a candidate is in the hands of the voter.  If the candidate makes his case, the voters will support him or her period

When the phrase “Money is the root of all evil,” I think this was first said by someone running for political office. Running for president is a very expensive proposition.

It’s impossible for most citizens to run for office. While never an option for most citizens, the costs of running for office, including senate races, have increased, narrowing the demographics for who can participate. The test of who runs and wins increasingly has more to do with their bank account rather than their merits as a political leader 

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) and Buckley v. Valeo (1976). These two cases had restricted Congress’s power to limit contributions to political campaigns and independent political expenditures, by both individuals and corporations. There is no question that candidates have moved from a position where they are dependent on the people to an increasingly dependence on the fund raisers.  So long as elections cost money, and candidates are dependent on its funders.  I doubt any one has the desire to change the system. Unfortunately the bulk of the money raised for elections come from just one percent of the population.  Yes, we need campaign finance reform but until Congress is willing to act,  it seems to the 99% of the population that our elections are corrupt.