I'm going to make a bold prediction. At some point in the not-too-distant future, someone will write the story of the 2006 election cycle. They'll call it "The Ground Game," and it will detail how people-powered politics trumped massively-funded campaigns of TV ads and resurrected for the Democrats Congressional districts and other electoral contests that had been written off by the pundits for decades. Moreover, it will tell the tale of how government
of, by and for the people was saved, at least for the time being.
Maybe this is just a pipe dream, or maybe, in the words of the inimitable Velvet Underground, it's the beginning of a New Age.
The preeminence of television as a tool of political (and other) campaigns was established long before a significant portion of the current electorate were born. The canon has it that Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 because he looked bad during a televised debate. The election only 8 years later, perhaps the first where TV was
consciously made a determining factor, would produce Nixon's comeback, and the watershed tome
The Selling of the President - the cover of which depicted Nixon's image on a pack of cigarettes. Over the years, as television became more and more the one thing we all have in common as a society, and as the country grew ever larger and our citizens more
isolated, it became more and more a truism that running for office demands serious fundraising ability, because television advertising costs a lot of money.
It's not that door-to-door, person-to-person campaigning is really anything new. It's more that most people nowadays aren't acquainted with it. The underdog, underfunded campaigns of 2006 have rediscovered the person-to-person campaign, out of necessity, and from where I sit, four days before the polls close on November 7, they have found great success with it.
Yes, the GOP have come unglued over the last several months. Yes, the president and virtually all of his policies are wildly unpopular. The pundits will tell you, and I agree, that the failures of one party, however horrendous, will not in and of themselves bring the opposition party into power. John Q. Public will never get nearly as exercised or motivated over the wickedness of the GOP as you and I will. The opposition still has to field viable and visible candidates - not tokens, not yellow dogs - to get elected.
The Democrats have made great strides this cycle in terms of fundraising, but still they lag the GOP by many millions nationwide. Many Dem candidates have spent little to none of their campaign dollars on TV ads, but have instead concentrated on making personal connections with the voters: hand-delivered flyers, phone calls, countless public appearances, and door-to-door canvassing. Candidates with more money to spend have still put together armies of volunteers who are doing the groundwork, with TV and radio spots more an augmentation than the focus of their campaign.
One effect of the Party's 50 State Strategy (which I wholeheartedly support) has been to spread the Party's funds even thinner. Yet on an almost daily basis we see the list of seats in both Houses that are in play grow longer and longer.
Why aren't the Republicans, with their fundraising advantage, strategic acumen, and all-out "air war," doing better in the polls? Could it be that the preeminence of television advertising in politics is waning? Are more of us finding out we prefer a handshake or a phone call or a knock on the door to the Voice of Doom on TV, selling fear and hate and telling us how rotten we are if we don't buy it?
I get the feeling that people have had it with heavy-handed attack ads, and bullshit in general, on TV. I sense a growing rejection of the falseness that is constantly being peddled by the media. A well-made television drama feels far more real to me than a show populated by non-actors who are thrust into wholly contrived situations designed to manipulate their and our emotions and labelled as "reality." I find a news show like Keith Olbermann's Countdown, where the host's point of view is perfectly clear but which host strives to maintain a basis in fact, far more informative (and yes, entertaining) than one that is pure sophistry masquerading as "fair and balanced" reportage. And I find a political ad where a candidate talks honestly and sincerely about their vision for America and the future far more persuasive than the vicious, twisted, slanderous advertising of a great many politicians.
The American Idol phenomenon notwithstanding, the ratings lately make "reality TV" look pretty dead. KO's ratings are shooting up even faster than the ratings over at Fox Nooz have dropped. And the Dems are poised to take control of the House, and quite possibly the Senate too.
I think we do want to be persuaded by that knock on the door - someone who might be a neighbor, or a friend, or even a complete stranger - someone who will tell us the truth. Get out there this weekend and tell people the truth, and we just might show the world that we the people can overcome the overbearing influence of concentrated wealth on our electoral process.