Elections or: How I Learned to Parody Movie Titles

Today is a day of great national import. Today we shall discover the "will of the people", who will perhaps grant the new Republican congressional majority a sweeping mandate to utterly overturn every action President Obama has taken, or instead will send a stern warning to all of congress that they'd better get their act together else they'll find themselves unemployed and reviled, or maybe will meekly allow the Democratic congress another chance to prove themselves, hoping that they will contritely do as the country desires.

What a load of crap.



The outcome of this election doesn't even matter to me. Yes, I voted, and hell, I voted primarily for incumbents and Democrats, but regardless of the outcome, I've seen the future of politics, and I am most displeased. Not that average citizens are getting involved in the process- in fact, despite the nature of these Tea Party activists, I'm quite impressed to see their relative success in getting involved and, possibly, elected. Perhaps they're not truly aware of their future limitations or of the world they're entering, but they're well-meaning at least, and it is more than a little gratifying to see new blood injected into a world of career politicians.

What bothers me is actualization of what worried me when the Citizens United decision was handed down. A previously restrained corporate world has now entered the political arena with full force, throwing campaign donations and bankrolling elections left and right. This election cycle, both parties will have spent about $2 billion dollars, most of it received from large contributions from corporations. Corporate sponsored ads have filled the airwaves, quickly pushing civil discourse to all out brawls that leave both candidates looking quite petulant. I can't say I'm impressed.

Through all of this, I've grown more detached from the political process itself. My friends know that, at heart, I am a student of political philosophy and have no stomach for the chaos created by actual campaigning. It's a disgusting mess that often resorts to little better than name-calling.

I've been getting some ads for the Washington race between Patty Murray and Dino Rossi, which I'd find entertaining if I wasn't so disgusted. Dino Rossi ran an attack ad questioning Patty Murray's ethics. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee ran a counter attack ad criticizing Dino Rossi for running the attack ad because his ethics were apparently worse. I'm pretty sure this ad is in response to the DSCC's ad. It appears that name-calling and "well, you're worse than I am!" is what this opportunity for great discourse has resorted to.

Don't mistake me for belittling the issues raised in these commercials; certainly, the ethics and morals of our elected political leaders is a rather important issue. But these commercials have the tendency to make cooperation impossible, and cause immense bitterness for the loser in the political battle. If Dino Rossi were to unseat Patty Murray tonight, I doubt that Patty Murray would disappear from the scene. But they surely would have a difficult time working together after the vitriol hurled at one another throughout their campaigns.

I have lost faith in the system. But I have not lost hope. No, despite the negative predilections I harbor, I still cling desperately to the possibility of civil, respectful opposition. The story of State Senator Andrew Maynard and his Republican opponent Stuart Norman is one of those rare stories that fills my heart with something akin to joy. Two men, politically opposed, have joined forces to provide their electorate two different views in a respectful forum. They don't have to be friends, or even like each other, to be willing to debate in a courteous manner. I'm sure they both have skeletons in their closet, and it would take very little to have those skeletons dragged out for the world to see, but somehow they've found the moral fiber to stand together and present their constituency a clear choice without resorting to such extreme measures.

I mentioned the Citizens United decision earlier as a cause of moral decay in our society. This is not because I am opposed to corporations having a voice in elections, either via direct campaign donations or through privately paid advertisements. This is because corporations, PACs, interest groups and lobbyists, don't care about the discourse. They care about the result being in their favor, and the most direct, and cheapest, manner to achieve that result is to bury their opponent in all the dirt they can dig up. Every misdeed, every mistake, every questionable action and every disputed decision is heaped on in the hopes that they can simply bury the other guy and move on. Few have the moral fiber to maintain propriety, especially when there are corporations, PACs, interest groups and lobbyists on their side quite willing to fling feces too. Besides, mudslinging works; it takes a lot of skill (and a lot of spinning) to win after being buried in grime. Returning fire is so much more enticing.

Our political future is particularly disgusting to watch unfold, and yet I feel powerless to prevent it. I'm poor, working for little more than minimum wage under one of the very corporations that, I fear, is driving our political system into the mud. But perhaps these Tea Party participants can show me a glimmer of light. Maybe they can actually change elections, and change Washington. But there's too much garbage obscuring my view of anything but this landfill we call the American political system.