We’ve got to help Alan Keyes
Typically I don’t read every political email I receive anymore than I pore over my spam, but sometimes a subject line catches my attention.
Recently, Alan Keyes was excluded from a Fox News-sponsored Florida GOP debate on the premise that he didn’t have the required 1% straw poll vote, even though the Iowa Poll allegedly had him at 2% just a week after he entered the race. Turns out, none of the polls used by the Florida GOP included Keyes’ name. Granted, they may have been taken before he declared his candidacy, but he’s in the race now and everybody knows it, even if his only true role ends up being to keep arch-conservative Christian issues in the debate. Keyes’ people sounded off, launching an email campaign to barrage Florida GOP chair Jim Greer with complaints.
This morning I received another email from the Keyes campaign. He was recently excluded from the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit, reportedly because he entered the race too late to be included. His staff, however, cites that attendee Fred Thompson entered the race barely a week before Keyes. Most top tier candidates were there – unlike the Values Voter Debate held in September, where Keyes came in just behind Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee in a field absent Giuliani, Thompson and McCain.
Keyes’ camp acknowledges that political event organizers have the right to invite (or not) anyone they choose, but that groups like the FRC are lying when they claim to invite ALL candidates. In the run-up, Keyes, clearly a candidate, didn’t get his invitation in the mail and when his camp called to see if it was lost, they were told that he simply wasn’t asked to participate. It seems a little sad to picture them all sitting around the office waiting for the mail and then calling the FRC, only to learn that they weren’t invited. I imagine their initial incredulity, followed by quickly rising ire and a subsequent email blast bitch-slapping the FRC, perhaps fired off in anger in the middle of the night.
Prior to the advent of email as the political machine’s communication tool of choice, citizens had to rely on the media to report stories of exclusion, favoritism and other abuses of power in a reportedly inclusive system. In Keyes’ case, there’s little chance his story would have gotten much play – he’s the quintessential fringe candidate. But by his ability to communicate with me directly, I am informed firsthand of ways in which his participation in the political process is being circumvented by those who consider him irrelevant or possibly (as he believes) dangerous to established party tradition. Either way, if he’s telling the truth, he’s being excluded and that’s not cool, even if so far it’s been technically legal.
It makes me wonder about the two parties and how they’re perceived. Do Democrats come off as disorganized, discordant and sometimes downright goofy compared to Republicans because they let everyone on the field have their turn at bat? Do the Republicans hold secret tryouts for the team, quietly shunting aside anyone who looks bad in the uniform?
And as long as I’m being absurd, is this something all parties should be doing more often? Should we require each candidacy application to be accompanied by a headshot so that if someone is too old, too young, too white, too black or just too unattractive to be elected everyone can be spared the awkwardness of pretending that person has a chance? If this is all just one rigged up dog and pony show anyway, why do we need the formality of an expensive, negative and protracted political race? After all, we’ve given up so many of our Constitutional freedoms at this point; why is it necessary to maintain the façade for this most odious of democratic responsibilities?
I’m in favor of sweeping change. The status quo isn’t fair to Alan Keyes, who thinks he’s really running for president. It’s not fair to voters, who have to watch the polls, learn the candidates’ stance on the issues, attend rallies and vote – not once, but twice. It’s not fair to taxpayers, many of whom don’t vote but still have to help underwrite the cost of federal elections. My way is cheaper and easier and the outcome will almost always be the same as it is currently: each candidate posts a video resume online and viewers vote for their faves. The top two vote-getters have a video run-off and the winner takes the presidency. It would all have to go down on YouTube or Myspace, though. Especially with the economy the way it is, I’m not sure anyone would pay to see it.
VS
