People always complain about money in politics, but the reality is there is very little for 98% of campaigns or in Washington, DC in general. Wealth in politics= relationships, not money. They print it there and then ship it to NYC and LA.
Pulitzer prize winner Richard Ben Cramer, in one the best books ever written about Presidential campaigns What it Takes: The Way to the White House - including a stunning chapter on Bob Dole- wrote there is two kinds of knowing in DC: factual policy knowledge- very valuable and who you "know" which can be priceless.
At the root of American politics and business is building and sustaining relationships. Some live by the axiom "leadership is building relationships." How do you get there? In politics, it starts at the grassroots, with personal hometown relationships but quickly grows if you run for office by "dialing for dollars".
At a glance, critics say this is where politics goes wrong, but actually it forces a candidate to pick up a phone and talk to real voters, who participate in politics constantly, usually personally and professionally and write checks to campaigns. Woe is me the amount of times I've watched losing candidates stare at a call list and then call an "advisor" to talk about an "issue" position. Shortly there after, the list is back on the desk for the manager to call. good for the manager but bad for the candidate, who needs people to invest time and money in them personally.
How much easier it is for all of us to "send an email" instead of call a human being and have a conversation? In this regard the Internet is pulling apart our democracy as it makes it easier for bloggers to start rumors and anonymous message board posts to flame candidates. It was quite comical when Howard Dean called for his "online army" to do something besides sit at a computer- maybe vote in a primary and he all he was crickets chirping on election day.
If the first step of measuring any politician is calling contributors- this is a good thing. Contributors are generally business owners and lesser known community leaders. They have money because they are smart and contribute to politics because it is a civic responsibility.
And yes oftentimes they have business interests related back to the government.
Guess what? We all do! And we sit around and complain about the people who eat our dinner because they asked for it and we simply did not. So get off your entitled butts and write a check to a campaign. And if you are a candidate... for goodness sake dial your call list right now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with Jamnes to a large degree. The conventional wisdom is that money perverts the political process by influencing candidates to change their views (and actions) to reflect those of the contributor. As always, the mainstream media look at an issue and draw the wrong conclusion.
There is no problem with influence. You can determine in advance how much money a cadidate is likely to raise based on the odds that he/she will win, how accurately he/she reflects the already existing views of the voters (and how well he/she can communicate those views), how well he/she organizes the fundraising effort and how hard he/she works at it. There is no correlation between ideological flexibility and fundraising prowess. The mainstream media assume that a candidate that receives large amounts of campaign contributions MUST be corrupt. The media are simply dead wrong.
Post a Comment