I was a newspaper reporter and columnist for almost 10 years. I loved the job. I was good at it and I was respected by those I covered and my readers. So when I left the profession, it must have been for something really good.
I left journalism for politics.
I was the Communications Director for a candidate for governor in Connecticut. Although the candidate was a Democrat, the truth is there were Republicans for whom I would have worked as well. I worked for a candidate I believed in: a brilliant, genuinely kind man who loved public policy and was in politics for all the right reasons. I envisioned working for the governor, being part of a team that worked on policy, discussed issues, and formed legislation.
After months of hard work on the campaign, my candidate joined his opponent on the ticket, agreeing to run for Lt. Gov. with his former rival. That candidate offered to keep me on – the only person from our team to whom they extended that offer. I declined.
I decided to end my career in politics after less than a year. (Thus a great PR career was born/continued). Why did I leave just barely after I started?
• I was disenchanted by the selection process. So many people candidly told us they preferred our guy, but four years ago, they made a promise to the other guy, who yielded to a bigger political name at the time. It was his “turn” they said. I get it, but sacrificing your best chance to win, or not offering voters your best candidate seemed shortsighted to me.
• You had to run left, then run to the middle. In order to get a nomination, we had to “prove” we were the “most Democratic” candidate, that we were more liberal than the other guy. The truth was we were not, and that we had the better chance in a general election. But the people who choose are party stalwarts and they want to be represented. Therefore we had to be the stronger Democrat and then, if we had won the nomination, we would have had to convince the entire state we were the most “centrist” option. Gov. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.
• Differentiation comes down to personalities. Two Democrats agree on most issues. So the secret was the point out what the differences MEANT. Our guy is the better leader. He can make the tougher choices. Or, on the flip side, you had to look for lies. You had to research the opponent (He says he taught at so-and-so college when he was only a guest lecturer!!)
What does all that mean? It comes down to this:
I was disenchanted by how we selected our candidates and the language we needed to use to get the advantage over the other guy. Inevitably the rhetoric became nasty and people drew lines. Were you a Candidate A guy or a Candidate B girl?
That was 2002. Things since then have gotten much, much worse. Even more than back then, we have sacrificed responsible discourse about the issues for the nasty “gotcha” ads. Almost everyone has a negative taste in their mouth about politics. In a land where we are given complete freedom, we choose to behave in a way for which we were to scold our kids if it were a student body election in their school.
This weekend’s shooting in Tucson, Ariz. have brought these issues front and center.
I don’t know if the shooter acted because a politician put the incumbent in crosshairs on a map; or if he was upset that she broke away from her party and didn’t back Nancy Pelosi for speaker in a meaningless vote last week. But the fact that we know either could be possible is a sad statement for us and a black mark for our country.
So please, let’s not get defensive in this debate, and let’s not blame anyone to make political points. Let us have the discussion about what language is appropriate and a better way of talking to each other and to ourselves. Let’s choose to take our freedom and make choices of which we are proud. While no leader or politician should be blamed or prosecuted for the actions of a crazy person, this situation is a stark reminder that people DO follow leaders. The actions of our leaders, of those in the spotlight, even our celebrities, get noticed and – like it or not – influence people.
We would be touched if a young person chose a life of good works and charity based on the example of an elected leader or candidate. So we can’t act surprised when those outside the margins, those not as healthy mentally as most, also react or are inspired by even otherwise innocent remarks or symbols.
Is it too much to hope that we all treat others as we want to be treated? That we agree to disagree, but don’t resort to shouting? That we don’t take our issues, our politics, personally?
Let’s stop trying to be right; let’s try to do right.
Starting today.
3 Comments
Leave a Reply
Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!
XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
So much of what you’ve said reflects my own disillusionment regarding the politics of the day. Honestly, it all seems like a game to me – a game that the voters don’t actually play. It’s the folks in power who do all the real maneuvering, and the rest of us just sit and watch. I think our political system is broken, and admit I feel hopeless that it will ever be fixed.
Lori: I think it can be fixed but it’s going to take some extraordinary leaders who don’t sacrifice on the idea of compromise. We are almost at the tipping point where the pendulum swings back
I am also in politics and share some of your views. It is hard to differentiate candidates during the endorsement/primary process, and then sell them to the more centrist voters. I have seen over and over again that the activists who select the candidates are not focused on the right factors (in my view). On the other hand, as a long-time party activist, I spent the time to go to endless conventions and meetings, meet candidates in person, and research their records. In that sense I felt I had a better basis for selecting a nominee than most people in the public, because no lie, people often enter the voting booth and either vote straight party line or on which candidate’s name sounds best or maybe some small point of connection such as the candidate went to the same school as they did.
Before we just blame the candidates, we have to look at ourselves. The public says they want civil, intelligent, cooperative leaders, but deem those leaders too “boring” to win. We have a fixation on celebrity that often gives us the most “tough-talking,” outlandish people as our candidates.
The role of campaign finance laws should not be overlooked — from my limited understanding, interest groups can spend money to promote an issue but not a candidate. However, they can attack a candidate without having their efforts count against the person who benefits from that attack. Perhaps you or someone with more expertise than I have can comment further.
Thanks for a great post.