CALL ME SNAKE

Yesterday’s trifle on Jungle Jerk’s failed run for city council stirred up more commentary (dare I say controversy?) than I anticipated–enough so that I’ve decided to take up the matter here in a follow-up post. First off, let me say that I employed some levity in writing yesterday’s entry that started this little discussion. It’s true that my friend (Jungle Jerk) had trepidations about winning the job he ran for (though did not “campaign” for), but he is also a smart, responsible person who would have taken the job seriously (and done well at it, I’m sure) had he won, though some schedule problems might have ensued. He wasn’t running just to see if he could win. He was asked to run by some locals who thought he’d do a good job. On the other hand, he didn’t expect to win and when it looked like he might, it gave him some pause (as in, “what have I gotten myself into?” and thinking about “recounts,” and the like…)

The episode may not amount to much, but it does suggest how “campaigns” might be different. As Dr. Max said: “A candidate who doesn’t campaign? Who states his views in a public debate and leaves it at that? How the hell did he lose?” Flubberwinkle (gotta love that name) also astutely argued: “The upside is that voters are turning towards candidates without image-makers, publicity photos and stunts. Could become a trend. (Let’s hope so.)”

All this is not to suggest that Gatemouth and zardoz did not argue astutely in their own right. But what if, as Flubberwinkle said, this approach to campaigning really became a trend? (This is more likely to happen, of course, if a candidate like Jungle Jerk actually wins, campaigning in the manner he did.) What if people didn’t spend tons of money on ads and on glossy literature and instead expressed their ideas in public forums, without going around hounding people on sideways or bombarding them with cheesy TV and radio messages? Wouldn’t that be refreshing? And not only refreshing but revolutionary because if this approach really took hold, maybe we could get the money out of politics and make our democracy democratic–something it has not been for a long time, if it ever was one.