Saturday, September 1, 2012

Thank you, Michael Moore

Michael Moore on presidential race
I don’t know if Michael Moore, the very progressive film producer who keeps churning out films that attack conservatives, knew he was doing it but he did make a very pertinent observation during an interview on the Huffington Post.
Disregard his comments on his expectation that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will defeat incumbent President Barack Obama in November. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us on how the election will turn out.
No, his telling comment was on campaign finance and how political parties use it (or should use it).
"This election's going to be decided on who gets out the most people that day. Who's up at four in the morning, making sure that dozens, hundreds, thousands of people in their communities are getting out to vote. And the Republican machine that is set up and the money behind it to guarantee [what] is really the only important thing -- turnout on that day -- that's what looks pretty scary here."
Uh, did I miss something here? Isn’t that what a democratic-republic is all about? Isn’t that what the democratic process is all about? I thought, though I may be wrong here, that the objective in any election was to mobilize supporters and to get them to the polling station so that the person elected represented their interests. Isn’t that what elections are all about?
To me, the role of the parties, other than to define the issues that they support and recruit candidates to run for office who will represent those views on those issues, is to mobilize their supporters and get them out to vote for their candidates. That is the job of the party faithful, to get those voters who support their cause to the polls in sufficient numbers to make a difference. If they aren’t doing that, then what are they doing? They sure ain’t helping their candidates. If the Republicans do that better than the Democrats or the Green Party or the Libertarians, then shouldn’t they deserve to win?
Mister Moore is scared that the turnout on Election Day might not represent his views. He calls that pretty “scary.” What about majority rule, Mister Moore? What about people electing their representatives in a federal-republic? That is scary?
The hypocrisy of his statement should be obvious. He doesn’t believe that enough people will vote “against” Romney. He might be right and he might be wrong, but then again, he might just be in the minority. Did that thought even cross his mind?
It is said that Americans are spending too much money on our elections. It is even raising questions in the foreign press. Hello, we spend more money in this country advertising tooth paste than we do on political efforts. We literally spend more than a trillion on advertising and public relations communications efforts but spending less than .6 percent of that figure on communicating our political views is wrong? There has got to be a disconnect there.
Of course, you can always say that in a perfect world, people wouldn’t have to spend money on communicating political speech. Hello, who said the world is perfect? Yes, money corrupts, but money also makes a pretty good megaphone and amplifier for what you want to say. Unfortunately, you can’t have one without the other.
Still, thank you Mister Moore, you hit the nail on the head. Elections are about turnout. Elections are about the constituents making their preferences known. That is what elections in the United States are all about.

No comments: