Ads in the 2010 US elections

Most political ads in the US election campaigns are lies at worst and distortions at best. Too many statements taken out of context leave too little room for the truth. And the debates really don’t offer a convenient format to dispel wrong notions. But, they are here to stay.

Among the recent defending ads, the best so far is from Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. “ I’m not a witch. I am just like you. I will go to Washington and do the things that you do “. Or something like that. A very good ad to answer a nonsensical objection and a nonsensical question by whoever her opponent is. Who cares if she is a witch or not ? Who cares if she WAS a witch or not ? Who cares if she believes in witchcraft or not ? Christian belief has space for angels, spirits, angels talking to saints, angels talking to poets, the Devil and the Devil’s minions. So, why not witches ? I would be more interested in things like - Is there something similar to what Jerry Brown says about Meg Whitman in California ? Like laying off many people from her company while drawing multi-million dollar salaries herself ? Everything depends on the details of the case, but at least it is a more germane topic for voters than witchcraft, I think.

Then there is the Carly Fiorina ad berating Barbara Boxer for putting style before substance. So, a general or an army officer calls you ‘ ma’am “ instead of ‘ Senator “. Yeah, whatever.

Then there is the Boxer ad saying Fiorina shipped jobs to China as CEO of HP. In today’s economic environment, a CEO would be amiss not to ship jobs to China if it is required to maximize investor profits. That’s the job of a CEO. USA is a capitalistic society, and if Boxer’s objections were to be taken seriously, then most or all CEOs of big companies won’t be able to run for public office. Now, what does Fiorina plan to do as senator to stop jobs from going to China ? That’s a different question. And the voters will most likely not know the answer before the elections given the nature of the debate formats. That’s the nature of American democracy.

And the one that I think deserves the most serious thought and analysis. The Jerry Brown ad saying he will never raise taxes in California without consulting the voters. A dangerous stance of economic populism. What does the public know about debts, deficits and the details about the expenditures of the state ? Or about possible fallacies of composition when it comes to the standard of living and the level of taxes ? Just enough to vote every four years on these issues, I guess. But not every year. The kind of practice Brown wants to follow would require education camps where the broad public can get educated about the nitty gritty details of tax policy. Of course, every one wants to pay less taxes. But the implication of tax policy for broader society is something that the cognoscenti and intellectuals and public policy framers are better at deciding. Alas, they are bitterly divided. Is he going to consult the voters every time he wants to REDUCE taxes ? I guess not. He will probably use some libertarian argument like – taxation is coercion. Relief from taxation is relief from coercion. But, these are quaint eighteenth century ideas. We don’t live in that kind of society any more. That taxation is coercion is an obvious truth, but that’s what living in a society like this entails. Let me not put words into his mouth though. Will he ? Will he consult the voters before reducing taxes also ?

I am having a moment of déjà vu. Seriously. As I am writing this. I am not a wizard. Smoke. I am not even a spirit. Smoke.