David Brooks, a political columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote an interesting piece on what issue the next national election will boil down to. His insight is noteworthy as it addresses a collective psyche, of sorts, that I believe operates on both the national and local levels. The idea lies behind what he calls the “happiness gap.” That is, the difference between how Americans feel about their private lives and the public institutions that govern them. Statistics show that we are generally happy about our personal situations. When it comes to government, however, we are deeply skeptical and disenchanted. Our society likes the notion of change, yet, we are not willing to embrace a candidacy that threatens our current private situations.
Although the overall notion seems rather paradoxical, one could make a solid case showing how these seemingly opposing ideas play out well in political reality. How so? The following comparisons, using Brooks’ criteria and several recent campaigns with which I am very familiar, serve as a brief analysis between critical differences in local campaigns.
Now, before I go any further, let me preface my comments with the disclaimer that this piece is not specifically about the race for District 5, but rather, about the larger ideas and approaches to running for office both on a local and national level. Not to address a moot point, but to be honest, had I read Mr. Brooks’ advice before my campaign, I may have approached things differently. That said, current candidates, take note. The following points are useful and have proven effective strategies.
Mr. Brooks’ first point of advice to candidates: Don’t try to be inspiring or rely on the pure power of authenticity. In these cynical days, voters are not interested in uplift. Brooks spares no punches with the starry-eyed idealist. Any inspirational message of change, such as “Let’s Keep El Paso Moving Forward” scares people. Also, appearing too authentic or novel raises a red flag. People generally expect to see a low-key campaign, and preferably a candidate who stays out of the spotlight. Too much attention is never good. These types of campaigns tend to fizzle early i.e. Howard Dean, 2004. Moreover, it behooves a candidate to address only standard, more mundane, issues. Promoting ideas that touch upon improving living standards are off-limits, as these are easily linked by the opposition to an increase in taxes.
Second: Don’t propose any program that will interfere with the way voters are currently organizing their lives. They don’t want you there. This means, any program that demands any more taxpayer funds is not to be mentioned or proposed by a candidate. Potentially lessening a voter’s disposable income means a change in the way she lives. Smart-growth, economic development, and tax-incentives indicate possible negative effects (meaning an increase) on current tax rates. All positive effects spurring from these ideas such as: better traffic flow, aesthetically pleasing communities, and high-tech jobs are quickly outweighed by the negative change. Addressing any of these in an openly positive manner should be avoided at all costs. Voters assume that the buck is always automatically passed on to them. So, promise to stick within current budgets or even lessen them, in order to win favor with voters.
Thirdly: Don’t expect people to cast votes according to their income. Democrats do as well among top earners as Republicans. This is particularly important in El Paso, where the line between Republican and Democrat is often very fuzzy. Many times, the “big guys” and the “little guys” are also confused for one another. Very wealthy campaign donors often support large community initiatives (the scary kind mentioned above) and, believe it or not, a few of them actually do it without the expected opportunistic disposition! Conversely, those forces “fighting for the ‘little guy’” often have no interest but to exploit intellectually challenged, aspiring politicians, for their own gain. Oh, if they could only see through the rhetoric to their trusted consigliere’s true motives; monetary benefit from large law suits against the city or county, perhaps? Often these seemingly disinterested forces turn out to be the largest and heavily interested individuals in our community. I suppose we should let the FBI and the U.S. Attorney have the final say on exactly who these individuals are.
Fourth: Offer voters a few big proposals (and strategies to implement them) that respond to global (and local) threats. Repeat those proposals at every event and forget about everything else. I have to admit, I added “and local” in this one. This last piece of advice, however, is probably the most important. The idea is to recognize the biggest threat to voters and ping on that point every possible opportunity. Make this your sound bite. People won’t remember that you ran on a platform of “integrity,” “honesty,” or “commitment.” Those are empty words, and you won’t be held accountable either. So, regardless of how large the problem is, and whether or not it can actually be solved by your proposal, be sure to reiterate your point as much as you can. In the U.S. the largest threat is, of course, terrorism. And, as we all have seen, no political candidate wants to appear weak on this one. In El Paso, we have come to perceive any rise in taxes as a threat to our way of life. The buzzword is not “quality of life,” but “taxes.” Promise to “hold the line on taxes” and you should be sitting in office soon. Don’t worry about the specifics of your proposal, just mention it generally.
While I admit, that this piece is tongue-in-cheek in nature, it should frighten us all that these scenarios often play out in the world of victorious politics. Is it truly that we are satisfied with our private situations and simply skeptical of politics in general? Or, is it that those who challenge the status quo and our way of life ignite a reaction in us against this seemingly offensive challenge? Many of us like to believe that life is good, but could always be better. If true, then we must continue to pose these offensive challenges to the status quo, regardless of defeat or victory.
***
Jimmy Suerken is a teacher at Cathedral High School and a former candidate for city representative District 5
