Opinion: US elections absurd, obscene - Montreal Gazette

MONTREAL — nless your interest in politics and government is limited to viewing elections through the horse-race prism, those that have just concluded in the United States can only be seen as profoundly dispiriting. Other applicable adjectives: absurd, or even obscene ("so excessive as to be offensive," as Merriam-Webster defines it).

One can say with certainty that the presidential campaign of 2016 has already begun. U.S. presidential elections have become both permanent and interminable, and the marketing intensity is absurd. It is hardly surprising that the United States is completely dysfunctional; campaigning leaves no time for governing.

Also absurd is the fact that in the world's self-described "greatest country" there are no national standards for elections. It is ridiculous that, even in the presidential election, each state is free to adopt its own rules, leading, as always, to pre-election litigation and innumerable irregularities on election day. Remember the famous hanging chads of the 2000 election?

The amount of money spent on presidential campaigns, to say nothing of what is spent on races for the Senate and House of Representatives, can only be described as obscene. To these enormous amounts must be added the administrative cost of the election process. At all federal levels, voters are choosing between one millionaire and another. This is hardly the government "of the people" that Abraham Lincoln invoked at Gettysburg.

One factor behind the obscene spending was the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case; in a tortured interpretation of the constitution, the decision held that corporations are equivalent to people when it comes to rights to political free speech.

One way all this money is spent is negative advertising. No doubt for reasons of political correctness, voters, when asked, say they object to such advertising. But if they truly do object, one would have to conclude that all those responsible for managing campaigns are morons, since almost all campaign advertising is negative, often ferociously so. The simple fact is that this approach works, and the result is that the campaigns are dragged into the gutter. Never was this more true than in the recent presidential election.

Notwithstanding the best efforts of "truth squads," the number of lies repeated endlessly by the presidential candidates and their surrogates was repulsive. Examples: Barack Obama's gross distortions of Mitt Romney's career at Bain Capital and position on the auto-industry bailout; and Romney's false assertion that Chrysler was going to outsource Jeep work to China, and his twisting of the Obama administration's changes to rules on welfare. The campaigns were equally guilty.

Perhaps most depressing, since the U.S. continues to be far too powerful for everyone else's good, is the fact that, beyond lies and slogans, both campaigns were devoid of policy substance. The country faces a vast array of enormously difficult issues, but none was addressed in depth, if at all. It is simply not possible to determine in any significant way what mandate President Obama received.