While I was watching the Bills play Tennessee last week, a referee called a penalty for something called “offsides.”  I am only vaguely familiar with what are considered illegal actions on the football field that require penalties.  I just assume that the refs know what they are doing and then, of course, the coaches on both sides are hyper tuned to these things and will take issue with calls with which they disagree. While I was considering what is meant by “offsides,” it dawned on me that maybe we should have officials to evaluate the TV ads and news clips with which we are being bombarded prior to the presidential election. We could have an illegal action called, “Are you kidding me?” applied to statements and accusations that are proven to be false … like telling the nation that legal Haitian refugees in Ohio are eating the local residents’ pets.    The penalty would be working 100 hours at an animal rescue.  I mean, why not? Could there be a penalty for vague promises to “replace Obama care” with something better while being promoted as the savior of Obama Care by a political associate?    There is this thing called cognitive dissonance.  How many times should the perpetrator have to write “I lied” on the chalkboard? Locally, one candidate’s TV ad accuses his opponent of workplace harassment even though two independent sources have said these accusations are without merit. At the same time there is footage of the candidate accuser dramatically excoriating one of his employees.  Talk about cognitive dissonance (thought I’d use that term again because it sounds so good).  Is there an appropriate penalty?   Maybe deportation to the state from which one candidate recently moved? Or, what kind of penalty would accrue to messages to women telling them that a candidate, convicted of sexual assault, would become their protector and/or that this candidate was the “Father of IVF”?  The mind just boggles. If you try to sell me a Bible manufactured in China while promising to bring more manufacturing back to the United States, there has to be some kind of penalty.  Actually, reading the Bible might work. Is the old penalty for using foul, vulgar language to disparage your opponent still the same?  What brand of soap would be relevant? Politics has never been clean.  When I taught, one of my lesson plans included the requirements that the students become familiar with the election of 1828.  It was Andrew Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams for the second time.  The run up to the election was bitter, personal and made mudslinging and personal attacks the modus operandi of Presidential elections.  Historians point to this election as being the beginning of the two-party system as we know it today. The students had to design bumper stickers, posters and press releases for both sides, demonstrating this off-putting cultural inheritance with which we have to deal every four years. Sadly, neither party has clean hands when it comes to campaigning, however, it is insulting to the voting populace to normalize outright lies, foul language, fear mongering and ad hominem speech.  A lie is not as good as the truth, nor is a “I have a concept” platform as good as a solid, enumerated platform for the purpose of deciding who has the best interests of the country and its democracy in mind.  If promises are too vague, based on pandering to fears created by the election strategies to divide the people, there should be a penalty. I watched the assault on the US Capital on Jan. 6.  I saw and heard it.  It happened.  It was not a peace and love gathering.  I saw the weapons, guns and anything that could be used to beat down the Capital police.  I heard the crowd threaten to hang the Vice President and assault the Speaker of the House.  So did you.  I witnessed the failure of the chief executive off the United States to take swift action against the insurrectionists. To say that is not the case is lying and lying deserves a penalty. The election of the leader of the free world should not be reduced to a series of fear mongering rallies where the participants are educated about “us” and “them” where the “them” are described as evil, insane, criminal, immoral and illegal groups and individuals, people like you and I who disagree with the candidate, who should be rounded up, jailed, deported or, as in one case, executed.  Come on!  Remember the reality of what is the United States.  You know who your neighbors are.  We are a generous, can-do people who want the best for each other, not wandering hoards of “us” and “them” waiting for a self-styled savior to make it all better.  We can work the problems of society out together … but first, we have to protect the process, the Constitution, the democracy, the vote.   And perhaps work on making the campaigning process one that relates to our individual and collective reason, something that doesn’t ignore our intelligence, something more civilized. Unfortunately, there are no professional officials in striped shirts monitoring the campaign. In the case of political machinations, we are the officials.  We are the refs. So, do we use hand signals?  Do we distribute appropriately colored cards to the offenders?  Or, maybe, the best solution would be to vote.