Correction: In a previous version of this column incorrectly stated how much the U.K. spent during its last general election. The correct number is $49 million.
The presidential election will surely dominate headlines for the remainder of the semester. It would seem like two completely different ideologies are in a savage fight, pouring their resources to obtain your very important vote.
Democrats and Republicans maneuver the political landscape by standing on strong principles and attempt to provide clear choice for voters. This is an ideal many people believe. No matter how many times elections show to be disappointing, most voters return to the polls with the feeling that this election will be different.
Already having spent hundreds of millions, campaigns this year are expected to have the most expensive election season in history. Congressional and presidential campaign spending will reach a total of approximately $6 billion. This is an astonishing amount, considering the election spending in countries with similar voting processes, like the United Kingdom. During the UK’s last general election in 2010, all political parties spent a total of $49 million combined according to National Public Radio.
A closer look at campaign promises will show their similarity in ideology.
The Democratic Party painted a picture of a phoenix rising from the ashes of a disastrous Bush administration. Promising changes in policy and a fresh ideology of liberalism, Obama easily won the 2008 election. For his reelection campaign, The Democratic Party will spend millions of dollars to paint Obama as a man who is still different from the Washington elite.
Obama’s major promises include repealing parts of the PATRIOT Act that violate the constitution; A new foreign policy in which we stop spreading democracy through force; Fiscal responsibility in which the government ends cronyism, or making laws and policies that create an unfair marketplace.
The single most stated excuse by current Obama supporters is that he hasn’t been able to push his liberal ideas, due to gridlock from the Republican dominated congress. Looking at his agenda and record would say otherwise. Not only has he not fulfilled his campaign promises, he has actively worked to expand and create programs that are in contradiction to a liberal ideology.
He extended the PATRIOT Act, which, among other unconstitutional things, grants authorization to government officials to listen in on phone calls and conduct warrantless searches in the U.S. Obama has also taken the former President and Vice President George W. Bush and Cheney approach to foreign policy, by getting into military conflicts around the world without congressional approval. Of course, there need not be an explanation on his blatant irresponsibility in spending.
“Believe in America,” Mitt Romney’s slogan, also paints a much different picture of his activities and plans for the economy. “Mr. Flip-flop” is spending millions on making an image of conservatism and constitutionality. After supporting Trouble Asset Relief Program, car business bailouts, healthcare mandates, gun bans and economic stimulus, it is hard to understand how any conservative with any sense of principles can pledge his support for this candidate.
Recently in conversation with some friends, one said this regarding politics: “The biggest problem is we have a really good car just some really bad people driving it.” Unfortunately, for many who still believe in politics, it is impossible to have a politician in power who cares about the “greater good.” Why should anyone pledge his or her support to any politician?
If we want to change the country, we cannot put our resources and hope on government.
Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu. Follow the columnist at @AlfaroAmericano.
Correction: An earlier version of this column incorrectly stated how much the UK spent during its last general election. The correct number is $49 million. The article has been updated to reflect this.
