As American as apple pie - WHY AND WHY NOT by Nelson A. Navarro

NEW YORK – The first thing that grabs anybody who tries to make sense of American politics is that there are no rules. True, there are all sorts of legal requirements, timetables, spending limits and sacred cows to cater to. But by and large, the candidate who seeks office has no real guarantees. He or she gets thrown to the wolves.

Outsiders and foreigners cannot help but be aghast by the sheer flood of words, the ceaseless obsession with image-building and the tyrannical hold of that institution called polling on this nation’s political life.

If this is modern politics, you’re tempted to say, why should other nations look forward to this American variety with any glee or hope for the future?

Of course, it can’t be denied that the US political system has cleaned up its act over the last 30 years. Gone are the smoke-filled rooms where bosses really made the crucial decisions about who’s going to seek office or win which positions. Gone, too, are the notorious patronage machines like New York’s Tammany Hall and Richard Daley’s Cook County machine.

If we are going to talk about "guns, goons and gold" politics that still reigns over Philippines and other developing nations, it’s safe to say that the US has made the quantum leap towards transparency and fairness.

Still, the Florida stand-off between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush seem to indicate that cheating or shady electoral practices never really disappear from any country. They just move to less conspicuous places or mutate into other forms.

What’s nice about America, however, is that nobody gets away with fraud or dishonesty for too long. With a free press and political atmosphere forever charged with partisanship, you can be sure that some angry voices will be raised somewhere, demanding justice or fair play. Not that every dispute or quarrel gets resolved, but that in America, justice can’t be blind forever.

You may win or lose in politics, but what’s important is that you get what you get fair and square.

Observing this year’s presidential elections, what stuck in my mind was that much of the action or what passed for action took place in the media. Perhaps that’s understandable in a country like America, really a continent with three time zones or as big as the entire European community.

Seldom do you see candidates in the flesh, unless you happen to be in some street corner when they pass by or you get invited to some fund-raiser. But then again, you get attracted by the celebrities candidates cannot seem to be without to guarantee some kind of public excitement to their presence. I witnessed, for instance, the electric effect of Tom Cruise coming to bat for Hillary Rodham Clinton. And this was before high rollers, not giggly school girls or ignorant peasants.

The need to communicate to millions "out there" inevitably submits politics to the dubious art or science of advertising and public relations. Some say to tactics of manipulation and mind control much akin to those employed by fascist propagandists like Hitler and Stalin.

Always, the candidates are presented in the most favorable light and their opponents painted in the darkest hues. They have a word for itóattack advertisements. These are slick ads that cut your opponents down to size by "card stacking" their negatives to look as if they’re really evil, corrupt or otherwise unfit for public office.

There are surprise attacks at the last minute when the opponent theoretically does not have time to respond or can only look harassed by being put into a defensive mode. This happened to George W. Bush whose previously unreported case of drunken driving in 1976 was splashed in the papers. Evidently, it contributed to a last minute surge for Gore among independents.

But the beauty of this gladiatorial exercises is that it doesn’t have to be one-sided; it can be resorted to by both parties. Both the Gore and Bush campaigns had field days galore distorting each other’s programs, statements and personal circumstances. By the last week of the campaign, television and the newspapers were literally blanketed with self-serving political advertisements. So were the talk shows and even the entertainment programs invaded by politics of the most partisan variety.

For US reformers and concerned foreigners like me, however, this rich diversity of American politics can also be appalling. Does democracy have to tolerate such mindless acts of irresponsibility? At what point can it be said that enough is enough? Unfortunately, the inevitable and most bewildering question of all is who then gets to set the limits? I have no answer for that.

* * *

Nelson A. Navarro’s e-mail address: [email protected]