I find myself amazed. How can anyone possibly be surprised
at the President's admission that he wasn't exactly truthful in
deposition back in January to the Grand Jury in the Paula Jones
sexual harassment suit against him? Hasn't this been the case
ever since the majority of us ever heard the name of the
charismatic Governor from the State of Arkansas? The question is
not whether this President is truthful. It is whether this is
symptomatic of our entire form of government. Am I the only one
to see the need for change?
How great must the need for power be in these men that vie
for the spot as the most powerful man in the world? Why is it
that we have only a handful of men every four years who have a
legitimate shot at the Presidency? In this democracy, how
can it be that no woman has ever reached the summit, when women
outnumber men in this country? In this melting pot of a country,
why has no person of colour ever claimed a top spot in the
government hierarchy? There is an answer to these four questions.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the way we
choose our leaders. There is a serious problem, maybe even a
criminal conspiracy, with the way the represent us once they get
there. Now that the President has aired his dirty laundry in
public, what kind of a man is going to want to follow him? Who
among us has nary a skeleton in their closet? Who wants to live
under the spotlight of CNN for the rest of their lives?
Obviously, the monied and privileged are the only ones willing to
make that sacrifice.
So what's the answer? Is it viable that we do away with
personal campaign financing altogether? Can you or I live without
the persistent mudslinging ads leading up to an election? Can a
person with less than a million dollars in the bank successfully
run for President, or for that matter, even Senator? Only if we
reform the way we elect them. With the blanketing of media
coverage that we live in today, why not wipe the slate clean and
let everyone start at ground zero? Why not a series of town
meetings to let them air their views? I submit that the networks
would line up for a chance to cover these events, much the same
way they cough up millions of dollars for the rights to sports
coverage.
A great orator like Bill Clinton might sneak through the
cracks again and become president, but we will hear his remarks
on a level playing field. Savvy television correspondents could
be counted on to ask the right questions to expose a candidate's
true agenda. Newspapers could report on concrete statements
rather than media driven propaganda. People could decide on their
own which candidate to vote for. Only then will we see a true
representative of the people.
To take the concept one step further, why not make the
office of the President a one-term post. That way we don't lose
one and a half to two years worth of productivity on a reelection
campaign. Fresh blood in the oval office every four years. I like
the concept. There are those who say that the learning curve is
too high. I submit that the two months between the election and
inauguration are an excellent time for some on the job training.
We don't have to worry about a sore loser on the way out. The two
can cooperate for the good of the country. If that is where their
best interests lie.
There is no perfect political world. There is no perfect
democracy. By taking the money out of the election, and taking
reelection out of the equation, we get what all of us want; a
President who works for the people instead of his (or her) own
interests. Plus we get rid of all those annoying campaign ads.