Fake news is nothing new. What’s new is with so many sources of real information we still get sucked in. As members of the most informed generation in history, by far, we should be better skeptics. Disagree? Mull over this statistic; the candidate who spend the most money on an election usually wins. It’s that simple. In the United States, where statistics are regularly published, federal elections are won by those who spend the most during their campaign by a margin of over 90%. Money gives a candidate the ability to purchase media, the media bombards us with the positives of voting for them along with the negatives of voting for someone else, and we listen. Money buys the message and it gets to the people. Those with the most money buy the best message and get it to the people more often.
The candidate might even be an incumbent politician who held power and failed to fulfill previous commitments – but we keep supporting them. We appear willing to suspend our disbelief and vote for them again and again, especially if they have the resources to convince us their opponent is worse.
Why is this so easy? Why is our trust available even at times when evidence shows our chosen candidate to be a dud? The answer is frustratingly simple. It’s because experts exist who can craft a message resonating so well with us, we believe it, regardless of what we have seen with our own eyes.
The story tellers who do this are world class. They have studied the psychology, cognitive theory, and statistical underpinnings of how we make decisions, and when they combine this with their talent as writers they can spin a tale of good and evil reaching into the heart of everyone listening. We hear and are compelled to believe, at least for a short while. These artists exist within a very select field, and are much sought after when elections are near. Their ghost written speeches and subtly slick campaign ads turn even the most mediocre candidate into a star.
But people will say, “What choice do we have? Every candidate is doing the same. Sooner or later we have to decide and we might as well decide in favour of the candidate who tells the best story - even if it might not be them telling the story. If they also happen to be the candidate who accumulated the most financial support should that disqualify them?” All relevant questions, of course, and the problem is we have no other baseline for measuring the quality of our representatives. No independent organization exists to supply us with an unbiased rating. We have no truly objective system for measuring a candidate’s honesty, intelligence, courage, selflessness, or work ethic. The only performance ratings come from themselves, their opposition, and the media, and all are biased.
Even though those nominated are all playing from the same play book, the amount of campaign money accumulated from donors should still be taken into account. Few people who give money to politicians, especially great quantities of it, want nothing in return. Do contributors expect legislation exempting them from costly regulations, lower taxes, continued subsidies or, perhaps, lucrative government contracts. It’s possible they want nothing more than good government. The kind of government that strives to improve the lives of all citizens. It’s rare but possible. The problem is, we can’t tell what the big money contributors want, or what they will be lobbying for if their candidate is elected, but we can expect that their desires will have significantly more impact than those who didn’t make their contribution. For the simple reason that the candidate will want them to give as much again in the next election.
When 90% of the elections are won by whoever has the biggest war chest, the elections are almost a foregone conclusion. The few times when candidates with the most money lose are usually the result of some seriously bad decisions made on their part.
Spin makes the difference, especially in close races. Unfortunately, the narrative they fabricate around a candidate’s life can leave you with a totally false perception. Candidates speak words that spring from the minds of paid professionals and promote policies crafted by analysts and pollsters. Their specific focus is on having their message peak at the moment you, the voter, walk into that voting booth. As a result, the motivations and opinions you believe are driving your candidate may simply not exist. In effect, you end up voting for a fictional character.
Some might suggest that this is too severe a description. They say we have teams of print and television journalists being paid to illuminate the truth among all of this bafflegab. It’s a nice thought. Unfortunately, if you are relying on the major media to find and show the fallacy of this process you may be waiting a long time. Elections are huge money makers for the media. Hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars in the case of American presidential races, are spent on elections and much of it goes into ads on major media. When the candidate feels they are being treated poorly by a particular organization they spend their money elsewhere. And once the election is over the media needs continued access to the winner for their interviews and talk shows. Do you think they will get that if the provide negative commentary on them as a candidate? Large media are corporations and money is what pays their bills.
Each candidate wants to convince you their story is the best and their truths are the real truths. With enough money and the right craftsmen voters can be strategically captured. Regardless, it’s of short duration. Once the voting is over “we, the people” return to being nothing more than white noise humming away in the background. We have simply become a means to an end, an audience to be corralled for a particular moment in time. We are shaped by information that is enhanced, filtered, tweaked, and wielded by craftsmen so well-tuned to our vulnerabilities that we may not know our own minds by the end of the process. Under the present system, voters have become no more than cobblestones on the road to power.
Just a Picture
