Presidential Politics as Reality Television

A common theme and criticism about presidential politics during this current phase of the election cycle is how the series of primaries and caucuses and debates are similar to reality television. Sometimes this can be an easy dismissive comment since one of the candidates actually has experience with reality programming, but I'd argue it goes far beyond that. I have a small number of guilty pleasure reality shows I'll follow each year, so I've had enough experience with the genre to notice a few things:

*Each candidate has either willingly stepped into or has been assigned a quickly identifiable one-dimensional characterization. These same characterizations can be found in just about any reality TV show. It's late February as I write this, so who do we still have left in the race? The Bully. The Smarmy Liar. The Whiner. The Space Cadet. The Misfit Who Yells All the Time. The Scary One. The Perpetually Ignored. I didn't mention any names here and I honestly don't agree with most of the labels I've included, but I'm pretty sure anyone following the election would be able to match them up with the remaining candidates, based on how the media is presenting the race.

*Each debate plays like a new television episode. People who got along three weeks earlier will be at each other's throats as the "plot" advances. Past arguments are continually referenced, so the viewers who haven't been tuning in from the beginning can catch up, much like a "Last week on The 2016 Debate..." introduction. The debates are followed by a public largely waiting for a fight to start.

*Both are populated by contestants who, for one reason or other, believe they have some quality that demands the attention of a national television viewing audience.

*As the season progresses, people are voted off the island / evicted from the house / told to pack up their playthings / announce they are suspending their campaign. After the story goes on long enough, it becomes hard to remember everyone who was on the show from the very beginning.

*The Internet is full of people arguing about which characters they like and which they don't.

*The people who get attacked the most always claim it as a compliment, saying it shows the other players in the game respect and fear them as a competitor.

*The process serves as a perfect example of how we all wish we could have left our most fundamental personality flaws behind us back in high school when they were so prominently on display, and how easily it can be for those flaws to resurface. We see it happen every time a candidate smiles through a barrage of name-calling.

*When everything is said and done, the winner will probably be the only person out of the pack to remain active in our collective awareness. Meanwhile, the others will fall back on public appearances to supplement their incomes -- presidential candidates will be at political fundraisers and go on speaking tours, while reality TV participants will be posing beside selfie-taking fans at rural casinos during three-hour time windows on weekends.

The big difference is that reality TV is intended to be entertainment, and the people who volunteer for their chance to be a part of it know that when they sign up. Electing a president should demand a higher standard of scrutiny. When people sign up for that, they know the entertainment aspect has, unfortunately, become a means to an end, and if they want a shot at the big prize they have to play the game.

I just know that this summer when I'm following the newest season of Big Brother and trying to decide which houseguests I dislike the most, I'll be concurrently hoping that the eventual presidential nominees will have the chance (or be demanded) to prove why they, flawed human beings though they might be, are the most qualified to lead our country through some tumultuous and contentious times.

And hopefully the public will vote for a leader who has more gravity than just being a favorite character.