All Politics is National – A Very Dangerous Concept

A recent NYTimes article talks about how Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party candidate for Senate in Delaware, represents a phenomenon that politics is becoming increasingly national in the age of the internet and 24 hour mass media.

Depending on where you get your news, this might not seem like much of a revelation. Much of what we see about politics has to do with the federal government, not state or local government. However, the federal government is made up of representative from the various states, who come together representing their state’s best interests. Compromises which take into account the best interests of all of us are forged from the coming together of all these diverse points of view.

So it might come to pass that Senators from the farm states have to work with Senators from urban states in order to put together the voted needed to pass something the farm states view as important. In working together, these Senators have to treat each other with civility and, more importantly, have to be mindful not just of their own agenda, but the agendas of others whom they will have to work with in the future.

That’s how the legislative branch of the federal government was designed to work. That’s how we all hope to deal with our friends, families and co-workers. That’s how we treat our children to act.

What happens if politics do become national? Before we look at that, let’s consider what that means.

In the context of Christine O’Donnell, and several other candidates throughout the country, it means that candidates for political office are less worried attuned to local issues, and more attuned to issues of a national scope. This approach is possible only if enough people in the state can be contacted and persuaded through mass media and the internet. So, what it means to be a “national” candidate in a state election is to be able to generate enough attention and publicity through mass media and internet that one can be successful without paying the kind of attention to local issues and events as is traditionally the case.

There is a huge problem with this. Specifically, ordinary people do not have the ability to access and influence the national media and internet in significant and/or meaningful ways. Wealthy people, such as the Koch brothers or Mr. Melon Scaife, have the ways and the means necessary to do this. They can bring to bear tens of millions of dollars necessary to run very effective campaigns for local candidates, when they have nothing to do with the state in question. Of course, such campaigns won’t come out and say “we’re from out of state, but we want you to vote for our candidate.” They’ll cloak themselves in the issues that are relevant to the state.

So if a candidate in Iowa was able to win election due to financial backing from people in, say New York, would that candidate be most interested in the issues that are important to the people of Iowa or to the issues that are important to the backers in New York? Ok, that was a rhetorical question. They would, of course, be more beholden to the people who paid for the advertising and PR to get them into office than the ordinary people and local issues which have traditionally driven our electoral system.

Now, fast forward to after the election, when you have a Senator from Iowa who’s been elected by people who aren’t particularly concerned about the issues that affect Iowa. Will that Senator honestly and accurately represent the interests of the state of Iowa? Will that Senator fight hard to achieve a compromise that helps urban states only if the interests of the farm belt are adequately represented in the deal? NO!

If the creation of national politics and politicians truly comes to pass, we lose one of the most basic and important elements of our representative democracy: the positive impact that diverse representative have on the process of governing. This imperative to find workable compromises works as a natural check on extreme solutions. It requires that our elected representatives listen to one another and treat one another with civility. These are great things.

Our politics are quickly becoming national. And as this process continues, the interests of the wealthy people who have the money to buy national media and internet campaigns will be represented to an ever greater extent to the detriment of ordinary people.

What can you do? Don’t vote for national candidates who are not beholden to local issues. Don’t vote for billionaires who spend hundreds of millions of their own dollars to buy an office. (We have no problems with billionaires per se. However, someone who spends millions of their own dollars on campaigning simply is NOT required to listen to local interests is not to be trusted with your vote.) Don’t vote for single-issue candidates who don’t care about the broader issues which will effect you on a day to day basis.

The concentration of power, or the ability to influence power, into a smaller group of people goes hand in hand with the concentration of wealth.