Elections by sound

bite: It's a tragedy voters are so shallow

I'm tired of campaigns for

president, mayor, governor, representative and senator and how our system

operates. Here is why.

I'm tired of meaningless sound

bites like, "I'm for education of our children, not for releasing

murderers from prison." The implication is that the speaker's opponent

is against education of our children, all the while looking for opportunities

to release dangerous people from prison. Hollow, well-rehearsed phrases

repeatedly present themselves like a bad chilidog. Every candidate is

"for the working man," but you can't be "for the working

man," for the lower class, for the upper class, for the interest

groups, and for the party powerful, all at the same time.

When a reporter's question

doesn't fit the politician's rehearsed answer, the politician gives the

rehearsed answer anyway, pretending to actually answer the question. The

public seems satisfied with such empty drivel, and alleged "hard-hitting"

reporters miss opportunities to say, "Thanks, but could you answer

the question I asked?"

I'm tired of reductionist rhetoric.

Politicians talk about complicated issues as if there were only one variable

to consider. Clinton has repeatedly taken credit for the prosperous economy

that we have enjoyed these past few years, and Reagan and Bush did the

same thing in the 1980s and early 1990s. The national economy is too complicated

to reduce to one program, one person, or one piece of legislation.

Violent crime rates, school

standardized test scores, and so forth are affected by variety of variables,

not one person or one policy.

Ross Perot could not better

personify this problem. During the debates when he was running for president

in 1992, he was asked how he would deal with partisan gridlock in Washington.

"Simple," he said. "We'll just get them all together and

work it out." If it were simple, there wouldn't be a problem.

Every issue has positive and

negative effects, but politicians lead us to believe that their personal

policies have only positive effects while their opponent's policies have

only negative effects. How I would love to hear someone actually say,

"This bill would have a negative effect on a percentage of the population,

but that is to be expected with any legislation or policy."

I'm tired of politicians taking

credit when good things happen while distancing themselves from the not-so-good.

Recent data has shown that the violent crime rate has dropped more this

year than ever before. Al Gore took credit, saying it was a result of

the Clinton administration's policies.

George W. Bush (who just happens

to be a governor) said that the credit should go to the governors because,

he said, governors have more influence on such rates than the president.

I am quite certain that if

the crime rate had risen instead of fallen, neither of these men would

be so willing to claim credit. On the contrary, Gore would have blamed

governors (which Bush just happens to be) and Bush would have pointed

to the Clinton administration policies as being ineffective.

Can you imagine working for

someone like this whenever good things happen they take credit and whenever

bad things happen they blame you? Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear a

politician say, "I'm to blame?"

I'm tired of the attention

we give to trivial issues instead of what matters in leadership. Recently,

the Bush campaign was criticized for displaying the word "RATS"

in an advertisement. The Gore campaign claimed it was "subliminal

advertising."

So what if it was? Politicians

say things just as insulting to one another's face. Now, instead of focusing

on matters of importance, we are left observing an argument between two

men because one allegedly called the other a name.

Bob Dole lost his bid for president

in part because he seemed too old. Bush's running mate Dick Cheney and

Vice President Gore both have been criticized because they are too lifeless.

What does that have to do with being a good leader? Are we electing a

president or a game-show host?

I'm convinced that parties

are looking for a candidate who looks good "out front." Since

the first televised campaigns, elections have been more about popularity

than leadership. In 1960, Nixon lost to Kennedy, in part because he looked

terrible on TV. Stiff and pale, Nixon was no competition for the charismatic

charm of the young John Kennedy. The Republican party was criticized during

the last presidential election because it didn't field a more likeable

candidate than Bob Dole. Shouldn't capability to lead be the real issue?

I'm tired of politicians who

seem to wear a Teflon suit. Gary Hart faded into political obscurity after

he was photographed on the boat "Monkey business" with a babe

in a bikini sitting in his lap. Yet Bill Clinton has a list of female

companions a mile long and his approval ratings just keep going up. Ronald

Reagan, perhaps one of our history's most popular presidents, got away

with addressing the Iran Contra issue mostly with, "Golly, I don't

remember."

Campaign advisors know that

every blink, nod, and syllable will be judged as if those things make

one a good leader rather than character and experience. Remember how President

Bush was criticized for looking at his watch during a 1992 campaign debate?

Impression management gets people elected, not competence. It is a tragedy

that voters are so shallow.

All of this has made me cynical,

and I don't think I'm alone. I do not believe anything any politician

says unless it can be verified by a more reliable source. I do not believe

any legislation or program is primarily for the people of the nation.

Its primary purpose is to meet the personal agendas of the politicians,

their parties, and their financial supporters. If the people of the country

also benefit, that is simply a nice extra.

Those in office spend the majority

of their time fund raising and ensuring that they, and their partisan

colleagues, remain in office rather than working for the people who elected

them. I have no hope that our system will improve because those within

the system would have to police themselves. That isn't going to happen.

Even when they pretend to make changes, those changes are cosmetic because

they know the people will not look deeply enough to see that such changes

are meaningless.

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear

there are no honest men and women in our federal political system. I fear

they seek office to fulfill their own personal agendas and/or to meet

the objectives of the special interest groups to whom they pander. Good

people who could be leaders are unwilling to get involved in our dysfunctional

system. Frankly, where it should be a noble title, I would be embarrassed

to tell someone I was a senator or representative.

All of this wears me out because

I love these United States. Men and women have died for this country and

I benefit from the work of my courageous and selfless forefathers. In

fact, the freedom to publish such a commentary as this without fear of

governmental retribution is demonstrative of this great country. Perhaps

the most frustrating thing of all is that our political system, flawed

as it is, is the best in the world and I wouldn't want to live anywhere

else. God bless this nation and its future.

Gregory K. Moffatt

Brooks