On the Modern Election

Two more days...

TWO MORE DAYS!!!!

Two more days and then the 2016 presidential election is (hopefully) over*.

*assuming that no one decides to contest the election...

And my, what an election it's been. I have to say--and this is really just my personal feelings on the matter--but 24 MONTHS IS AT LEAST 20 MONTHS TOO MANY!

I understand that a lot of the US is used to candidates personally coming around, shaking hands to getting vote, and really getting to be personal with everyone...

And, really, it's that last one that has me worried, because the more that we worry about getting to know someone personally, the more the whole process devolves into being more about personalities than programs.

Alright, a disclaimer: the US presidential elections--and, really, most elections in the country--have been more about party and personality than politics. No, seriously, go look at the primary sources that we have from earlier elections. Many people, when asked why they are voting for a certain ticket, will talk about how their parents were part of the party, and their grandparents had been part of the party, and really, the party was so ingrained in their family that they couldn't imagine things going another way. These party allegiances are so ingrained that it takes huge demographic shifts and movements in platform to change the dynamics.

For a modern example, look what happened to white, industrial voters when the demographic party dropped unions as a core tenant of the party.

But all of these aspects--though fascinating--aren't what I'm here to talk about today. Instead, I'm going to talk about how overt personality has become in our elections.

As I said, personality has always been heavy in US politics, but policy has factored in as well. I'm not talking about policy as something that actually swayed the voting populace--though that has happened--instead, I'm talking about policy in general as an idea. What that idea stood for was that, somehow, elections--and our elected officials--transcended the pettiness of everyday life, that what an individual did--or said they would do--was more important than who they were.

At least, that's what the history books tend to say.

The one president who transgressed this rule to the extent that it simply could not be ignored--Nixon--left office in disgrace. Several got close--Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton come to mind--but for the most part presidents were able to be judged by their policies, while their less savory aspects were swept under the rug (and, once again, left out of history books. Really, Iran-Contra affair? You only got two paragraphs in my text book? What gives?) and forgotten by pretty much everyone.

But, today, policies seem to have been left behind. Orange, criminal, racist, corrupt, inept, untrustworthy, boorish, b***h...I see these words every day in our campaign.

And it's driving me nuts.

Why? Because of what it symbolizes. Call me naive, but it seems to me that we as a society are quite divided. Issues are seen in black and white--red and blue--and the other side is seen as unpatriotic. I repeat: the other side is seen as unpatriotic. Not their ideas, but the people themselves.

That is what scares me.

Disagreeing with an idea is fine, because it tends to lead to discussion, and then the ability to enjoy the company of the other person. But disagreeing with a person does not lead to discussion, because there is nothing to discuss. Any disagreement is, by definition, a personal insult, which only drives people away.

So, what do I recommend?

There are lots of possible answers. However, to me, two main lines come to mind. First, separate people from their ideas. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make the a bad person, nor does it necessarily make them wrong--but that's another issue all together. Second, and this may be the harder one to bring about, is that we need to leave the two party system. Hearkening back to our earliest days, many of the founders (including George Washington) did not want there to be political parties. From a personal standpoint, I find that only having two parties lessons our discourse. When there are only two sides to every issue, everything agreed upon is never discussed, and everything disagreed upon is automatically polarized. Until we have more than two parties, we will only ever have two sides to every argument, and avoid the savagery of this election.

Then again, history will probably sweep most of this under the rug, and remember this as a fairly calm, normal election. Isn't history fun?