The endless election cycles have the effect of putting the electorate into a daze of sorts, but the American public would respond to a more dynamic, participatory democracy with shorter, more focused election cycles. Democratic National Convention in Chicago was an important factor behind the change. Democrats were shaken as anti-war protesters clashed with party leaders over the disastrous conflict in Vietnam. Violent confrontations unfolded on the streets where Mayor Richard J. Daley’s police attacked protesters with brutal force. Rather than allowing party operatives to keep picking the nominees in smoke-filled rooms, Sen. George McGovern and Rep. Donald Fraser successfully proposed reforms that made primaries, as well as caucuses, the contests in which voters would determine who sat atop the ticket. And when former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter figured out in 1976 how to use the Iowa caucus as a way to build the perception of being a front-runner, the official kick-off for presidential campaigns became January of election year. Republicans embraced the McGovern-Fraser reforms and moved away from party machines as well. Very quickly, candidates started to prepare even earlier as they wanted to make sure to do well in Iowa as well as the New Hampshire primary so as to receive the boost of an early victory.” However, there was another crucial factor at play: money. In 1974, in the aftermath of Watergate, Congress passed reforms that created contribution limits, spending limitations, tighter disclosure rules and a Federal Elections Commission. But these reforms were the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a bullet wound, and they failed to prevent the rapidly increasing costs of elections. Specifically, television spots placed an incredible strain on the budgets of candidates. By 2020, presidential and congressional elections cost an astronomical $14 billion. This is a greater amount than the GDPs of some small countries. Also, the election reforms of 1974 were knocked down by the Supreme Court in 1976 on the grounds they violated free speech. After this, political action committees and non-profit entities became the primary economic engines of both major parties while presidential candidates decided not to accept public funds in lieu of spending as much private money as they wanted to. This has created politicians who largely respond only to the demands of big money donors, and look at the demands of constituents as a nuisance at best and threats at worst. Over the years, candidates and consultants have joked that presidential campaigns usually start the minute after the inauguration ends. Another factor is television, and the more television has evolved into its modern incarnation, the more insufferably long the campaigns have become and the more irrelevant much of the coverage around the campaigns has become. The 1980s were the dawn of cable networks devoted strictly to news, most notably CNN in 1980, and then Fox News and MSNBC came along in 1996. The networks make their money through advertising, so they are incentivized to air stories that will garner high viewership. Horse-race political coverage became ideal content to fill airwaves because, one, it theoretically changes on a day-to-day basis, albeit in ways largely insignificant, and, two, it doesn’t offend or conflict with the sensibilities of any advertisers. Talking about the day-to-day machinations of the campaigns gives the illusion of urgent breaking news that is hugely important without substantively delving into the structural issues that plague America. This endless electioneering creates a plethora of collateral damage, as Congress seems incapable of remotely fulfilling the wishes of everyday constituents and is stuck in a cycle of constant fundraising and electoral pressure, with zero time for sober policymaking or making any structural improvements to our system of governance. Additionally, the endless election cycles lead to a deeply cynical and apathetic electorate, rightly 16
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODQxMjUw