Reforming Politics (i.e. regime change at home) - Part One

The twenty-first century is introducing new challenges to presidential selection in the United States. The rapid pace of technological advancement and its effects on human society continue to influence social dynamics on a functional level. One of the more profound conduits for technological integration is the mass media. Television, in particular, wields an underestimated power over the human psyche. Television’s ability to reach a large number of citizens in one broadcast, compounded by its operational cost, has induced unprecedented political spending by parties competing for power.

In the United States, it is no secret that money influences, to some degree, most if not all aspects of American culture. Concerns of unequal bias between the money powers and the common citizen echo throughout American history. Yet today, a disproportionate percentage of media outlets are owned and controlled by a few corporate and commercial interests. Media outlets, following the imperative of the fiscal “bottom line”, compete for viewer-ship by promoting sensationalism over objective journalism. As a consequence, the American media landscape is littered with rhetorical soundbites raped of context.

One of the many side effects of this has been the “dumbing down” of public discourse. Rarely are existentially significant issues, i.e. global population density, depletion of natural resources, climate change, etc., debated thoroughly in public media forums. Instead, partisan dogma wields the lenses of “reality”. Nevermind that both Republicans and Democrats are typically American Adult “White” Males with loving families and a steady supply of wealth. One would think it to be a wise strategy to work together to manifest and protect the ideals of the American Constitution and the society it enables. Yet, on a daily basis, Republicans and Democrats ignore their shared interests to create the reasons for opposing one another. Thus, they perpetuate a schizophrenic political cycle that sacrifices reason and stability for dogma and power.

Presidential debates are highly controlled. Ironically, although “republicans” and “democrats” maintain oppositions over many issues (i.e. abortion, government-social integration, etc.), they eagerly work together to repel third party contenders from official campaign debates. The subject matter of the debates is also controlled. A latent function of bi-partisan debate control is one of image protection for the candidates involved. A degree of censorship is, if only passively, enforced. Time constraints during the debate force quick and empty answers to questions. The Presidential candidate that survives this plush gauntlet of social accountability must be a good actor, but not necessarily a good thinker. This is yet another weakness for presidential selection in the twenty-first century.

Human civilization on Earth faces many threats from the entropic universe. Our increasing dependence on amplified energy and technology is making us vulnerable to shifts in environmental “chaos”. As global nations face new challenges in meeting the demands of human consumption, it is critical that an American democracy produces well-informed and critically minded leaders to navigate the trends of the present and future world.

The Constitutional requirements for Presidential eligibility are adequate for modern American society, certainly worth preserving, and should not be amended (i.e., allowing a “naturalized” foreign-born American to hold the office of the President). The Electoral College, as it has been influenced by President Jackson, can continue to serve its purpose in averaging out the displacement of political influence across the country (but only as long as our government is dominated by bi-partisan politics). Bi-partisan politics, however, could produce better presidential candidates by encouraging and expanding the public forums of debate.

Overall, it would be healthy for American society to embrace a broader and engagingly integrated system of political communication. A renaissance of “Socratic” political debate within community public forums could provide gateways for potential political candidates, enhance the quality of political candidates, and establish a highly competitive arena for candidate selection. Yet, this is not our reality.
America is a media saturated society. Science is slowly coming to understand the psychological and social consequences of media conditioning. The bottom line for American democracy is that the raw economic and cultural cost of the political media circus is far out-weighing the benefits of media integration.

The process of presidential selection in the twenty-first century has been weakened by the decadence of our tech-fixated culture. Future election reform needs to place its emphasis on easing the media costs of the political campaign, attracting well-informed candidates, and establishing the conditions for open and reasonable discourse. Our American democracy must produce well-informed and critically minded leadership if it is to survive the future of human civilization. Our alternative is to conform to the birth and death life cycles of history’s greatest empires.