Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Refining Lies Into [Faux] Truth

Campaign reform needs to be a top priority before another election is held. A campaign is the model opportunity for both candidates and the media to create "truth" that is unique to the individual and/or the PR opportunity. Candidates and the media glorify the tiniest pieces of alleged truth into a campaign for "truth, justice, and the American way," while the falsehoods are shit spun into cotton candy. No one wins, and the biggest loser is people's belief in the government that no longer represents we, the people.

What I have gleaned from the current campaign is that it's okay to say whatever you want to say to discredit the opposition as long as you never have to say "I'm sorry." If you can walk away from the faux truth without admitting that it's a vague representation of the tiniest speck of the truth, you win. If you can find a dynamic way to spin and refine lies into a new take on the truth, you win bigger. This on-going process of refining lies into [faux] truth has been going on in Cally-phone-ya for well over a year, so it is currently impossible to ascertain who is lying, much less which candidates may be telling a piece of the truth.

Campaign reform could include a 90-day campaign with a spending limit of $1 million dollars that is deposited into a special account controlled by a federal employee. If you cannot sell yourself for office in 3 months, you aren't going to accomplish that goal in 24 months. It also should be illegal to use quotes out of context, such as the current side-by-side of our CA Governator and Meg echoing the same words, sound bites taken from past public speaking engagements that depend on uttering the same trite phrases endlessly in an effort to enfuse them with sincerity and import. Even President Obama finally had to retire the "slurpee" metaphor because he beat it to death and it lost its effect. Ditto the change to latte, as well as the on-going car being driven into a ditch, off a cliff, opponents sitting in the back seat, and taking away the car keys. An equally important reform is the ban on using any newspaper articles as "proof" of anything because the newspaper is a political organization that promotes not just its own agenda, but its own candidates. There is no fair and balanced, no impartial analysis, no political neutrality from any business and/or organization that either accepts money for media advertising or donates money to the candidate's campaign.

I am offended by the out-of-control spending of both government agencies and political candidates. CA legislators regularly receive new laptops so they can stay plugged in to their voter base, but our school systems cannot afford to replace the desktops used in the computer labs that were purchased with the big show of technology for all a decade ago. CA legislators have extensive staffs to help them to perform their jobs, while schools have laid off both full- and part-time staff. CA legislators have auto and travel allowances, while school districts cut busing sevices for school children.

Add to that entitlement mentality the millions of dollars that are spent to win an office, money that could be donated across the state to worthy beneficiaries, and it turns representation into reprehensible.

We're always willing to cut the other guy's pay and benefits, but it's time to look in our own lives for ways to reform the process that we created during the high-livin' times and set an example for what we'll do when we're elected. If Meg actually had multiple millions to spend to become the Governor, someone needs to ask her why: she's already a financial success, and the bottom line is that she will have no power to fire the elected officials who are in office to further their own agendas, nor to downsize the huge, inefficient workforce and ship the state's business overseas. If Meg had spent $1 million on her campaign and the other one hundred million in donations throughout the state, not only would I probably vote for her, but think of all the FREE publicity she would have been given in the process!

Talk about showing the people not just the truth of what you say, but what you do and who you are.

1 comment:

John said...

I think it should be illegal to run "negative" campaigns. Your ads, messages, blogs, etc. can ONLY mention your solutions and answers to questions and situations, but cannot mention your opponents'.

I also think there should be a legally mandated fair information act that puts a listing of incumbents' voting in an easy-to-find location, so I can see how often a person voted, on what issues he/she voted, how he/she voted, and what the result was for the vote.

The only voices we're hearing from are the far (tea party) right and the far left. But most of us fall somewhere between those extremes. I also believe that most people would rather vote for a person than a party -- a person, regardless of political affiliation, who the voter most strongly identifies and agrees with.


*caslym