The Audacity of Nope

Yesterday's New York Times carried a story on what it termed one of "the audacious proposals" in President Obama's budget – a plan to cut farm subsidies that would save nearly $10 billion over a decade. Unfortunately, the plan set off "a huge alarm in the powerful farm lobby." Among those clanging the loudest "No!" were Mr. Obama's fellow Democrats in farm states, such as Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. of South Carolina.

Mr. Obama's vision of new politics, outlined in The Audacity of Hope, has once again collided with the realities of old politics, where vested interests plow under efforts to weed out government spending programs that most people agree have outgrown the fences. There are certainly elements of merit in Mr. Obama's plan, but even farm subsidy critics agree this was an overreach.

The Times article further noted that in this Congress "farm subsidy limits never got off the ground." I'd prefer another description: the farm lobby planted them so deeply they'll never see the sunlight needed for them to sprout. It just goes to show that everybody wants reform, but don't touch their sacred cow. Or corn. Or beans. Or wheat. Or whatever. It's a variation of NIMBY – everyone says we need more drug treatment facilities, or homeless shelters or power grids – just Not In My Backyard. There will be more such collisions. When it comes to budget reform, everyone agrees, sacrifices are critical, but NAME – Not At My Expense.

Full disclosure: my mother's cousins and the family of an ad industry friend both run dairy farms.

Voting By Design

This week, the New York Times editorialized that eight years after the infamous "Butterfly Ballot" of Palm Beach County, Florida, little has been done to improve the design and usability of one of our most valuable weapons in the fight for democracy. As the Times notes, "…poor design and instructions have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters…"

The problem is not with design per se; I'm not a graphic designer, but I've worked with many very skilled ones over the past three decades. Any one of them would be able to design a ballot that would be easily understandable. Here's one suggestion for paper ballots, either optically-scanned or hand-tallied: one block for each race, separated by distinct borders; each candidate/party listed and a large check box, punch out or whatever right next to each candidate's name. Make it simple and you make it easy to understand. For electronic machines, the same format would work; just be sure the voter can see how many contests there are per page (maybe number them?) so that someone's not voting a particular race is a choice, not a mistake.

The instructions? Make the ballot design simple and you eliminate the need for complex instructions. "Mark only ONE box per office" (or two or three if it's something like a board of county commissioners). Clear design begets clear instructions.

That's the easy part. The hard part? Getting such a simple design mandated as a uniform national ballot template. Why is that hard? Start with meddling by local and regional politicians eager to retain control over their fiefdoms. Couple that with the parochial attitude that "we're different here" and intransigent party bureaucracies (all guilty) and you have the formula for as many different ballots as you have voting jurisdictions. There's a reason why franchise operations like Quizno's or McDonald's look, feel, taste and even smell the same whether they're in Detroit, Dubuque, Denver or Duluth. There's value in delivering the same experience nationwide. In the case of uniform ballots, how's better turnout for a start?

If America hopes to meet the challenges of 21^st century global commerce, it won't happen unless we wean ourselves from 18^th and 19^th century political systems. Congress feels no pressure to change from local and regional politicians with vested interests. Voters must demand it.

While I'm on the subject of outmoded electoral systems, will we ever get a national presidential primary to replace the current – and ever more controversial – system of state primaries, all jockeying to have the most influence? When a candidate runs for governor of a state, do they hold a primary in each county (which would be 67 in the case of my home state, Pennsylvania)? The presidency is a national office; a national primary gives voters in every state the same shot. But the same dynamic that keep ballots "separate and confused" seems likely to derail such a long-overdue modernization.

In both cases, voters must demand these changes. Now that's one form of "on-demand programming" I'd watch.

Issues or Invective?

I usually avoid discussions of politics in this forum; the airwaves and blogosphere are filled with eminently more qualified (?) pundits. I’m making several exceptions for this presidential election because it’s probably the most important election in a generation.

As I commented in my post “Don’t Call It Advertising,” there’s been a paucity of real discussion and a profusion of attack ads in recent years. Negative political ads aren’t new – they’re virtually as old as the republic itself. What’s different today is the speed and breadth at which such negative attacks can be disseminated –just a few clicks and you’ve covered the globe.

Will this election be any different? Will we have substantive discussion on the issues or will there be more sound-bite sniping and swift-boating? I’d like to believe with all that’s at stake we might just get some respectful dialogue. But I’m not hopeful. As Montana State Senator Jim Elliott says in his Montana Viewpoint® commentary, “But most often candidates are not treated with respect by the other side, and portrayed to be purposefully deceptive, crooked, or just plain dumb.”

Negativity, half-truths and slippery answers – they’re just too good for candidates to renounce. If political ads were held to the same standards as ordinary product commercials, the surge of negative ads would wither.

Politicians alone are not to blame. There’s another reason – a lazy electorate. It’s much easier to watch a few TV ads and form an opinion than it is to really investigate a candidate’s position. If negative political campaigning is to be curtailed, voters must insist on it. But that takes effort.

Speaking of effort, the media’s been focusing on how energized young people are by this election. They could be a huge factor; any number of news articles point to an army of new voters – young people who’ve become interested and engaged in this election through online venues like Facebook and candidate websites.

I’ve seen some of that enthusiasm in the public relations courses I teach. But one cautionary note: online energy isn’t worth a damn unless you vote. And as I will tell my students in September, you can’t text-message your vote (at least not yet). You actually have to take the time to go to a polling place, perhaps stand in line for some time and mark a ballot. (And before that, you have to be registered.) Will they follow through? The country’s future might depend on it.

Issues or Invective? An army of new voters? What’ll it be, folks?

If you’d like to read Senator Elliott’s full commentary on negative political ads, you can find it at: http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com/article.php/20061102095050809.