The election is over and done.

We’ve sworn in the people who won.

By week one or week two

We’re at it anew.

It’s courtship not marriage that’s fun.

 

On December 1, 2022, the midterm election cycle ended with Raphael Warnock’s victory in the Georgia Senate runoff.  I felt a sense of relief with the result and with the hope for at least a few months of respite from the daily flood of emails from politicians begging for money.  That hope did not last a week. Even before Donald Trump beat the arrival of Santa Clause, and the various prosecutors who were chasing him, to announce his candidacy for an election still 22 months away, the various office holders and office seekers were at my email door looking for a handout.  One election cycle ended and the next began.

We are in an era of perpetual election campaigns and an election industry that profits from it and sustains it. The road leading to this situation dates to 1968.  Before ’68 the recent conventions were televised and provided the spectacle of mostly elderly white men in silly hats parading around the hall in support of their candidate. There were about a dozen states that held primaries that might enhance the candidacy of an aspirant but were not decisive. The nominee was selected by the party elite and the political bosses. Conventions were still contentious with fights over delegate seatings and the party platform.

The year 1968 capped a period of progressive social legislation, and civil rights gains. It was also a time of cultural upheaval, urban unrest, and a divisive war in Vietnam. The year began with Lyndon Johnson “losing” the New Hampshire primary because he only beat his relatively unknown opponent, Gene McCarthy, by single digits.  Johnson dropped out, Robert Kennedy stepped in, and the two announced candidates battled through the remaining primaries while a summer of love declined into a  chill of discontent. Martin Luther King was assassinated. Urban neighborhoods throughout the nation erupted in anger, and, after winning the California primary, Kennedy was murdered. The convention later that summer erupted in anger and chaos inside and outside the hall.  Humphrey was nominated despite not contesting a single primary. Had Kennedy lived, it is not clear the result would have been different. The Kennedy and Johnson wings of the party would have battled in a heated setting with Humphrey still the likely nominee. The events of 1968 marked the beginning of the end of convention drama, favorite sons, super delegates, and the outsized power of party bosses. It also marked the beginning of a realignment of the two parties along the divisions exposed at the end of the Civil War.

Changes in the election process evolved in stages. Into the latter years of the twentieth century the election season was still largely confined to the single year, primaries were held in most states but not solely decisive in selecting a candidate, and the main election campaign was still waged between Labor Day and Election Day in November.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision facilitated the growth of the perpetual election and the industry supporting it by providing the money to sustain such a lengthy process.  A proliferating number of news networks and social media sites found an opportunity to boost their ratings and profitability by enhancing individuals and controversy to attract an audience.  Polling has become a lucrative year-round enterprise attracting colleges and media outlets into the field. Madison Avenue enjoys the fruits of what has become an ongoing Super Bowl.   Party conventions are now nothing more than a week-long infomercial devoid of any drama save what is manufactured by the networks trying to retain their audience. In such a climate of perpetual election there is little time for any actual governing to occur.

Political parties are much less cohesive today. Their former role of providing a governing philosophy, selecting the candidates from among themselves that best espouse those ideals, and raising money to support their slate has been diminished. Now media attention and dark money donations boost and determine candidates. Often it is the candidate that selects the party offering the best opportunity to achieve his or her ambition rather than the other way around. The party label is little more than a brand name like a variety of cereal a person grew up eating and continues to buy no matter the consequences for his or her health. The role of dark money is toxic to democracy. The need to raise money from big donors consumes much of a legislator’s time and influences too much of his or her legislative agenda.

Democracy is much more than ostensibly free elections. It requires an untrammeled and informed elect orate, a process that is not hostage to big monied interest, acceptance of the results, and a quiet period of non-partisan willingness to work together for the common good. Democracy is too fragile to survive the rigors of a continuous election cycle.  The election industry seeking to profit from a manifestation of democracy has trivialized the process and undermined the essence of the institution.