Searching for Tuesday’s Answers

by John Lindstrom
Gongwer News Service
July 30, 2010

In little more than four days the 2010 primary election will be done. Voters may sigh a refreshing sigh of relief to be done with the campaign conniption and cloddishness, only then to groan as they realize the primary is prelude to the main attraction.

The primary merely settles the final cast; there is yet the operatic warbling of the general election to, ahem, enjoy.

But, in fact, a primary does not just settle the cast, it establishes tone and theme of the election, both explicit and implicit. Candidates have employed different strategies to wheedle their way into the mind of the voters up to the primary, a wheedling based more on psychology than on reason. From the primary we see which wheedling worked best, either because it was the best developed and employed or because it was the one better financed.

So what tones and themes does this primary potentially portend?

As far as governing Michigan come January 1, 2011, is concerned, the public has reason to worry that years of standoff could continue, especially if the state continues with split government.

That standoff, should it continue, is due in part because the candidates grow more extreme in their basic ideological bent, and the voters who select them grow more extreme.

That as the candidates and voters grow more extreme, the idea that issues play any role at all in deciding who gets elected becomes more and more a fantasy.

That despite the growing Freudian nature of politics, there are issues that, in fact, help drive election efforts.

That organization and combining technology with old-fashioned hard work may still trump money in terms of winning.

That all of the above could be tossed in a trashcan if the voters confound everyone by what they actually do on Tuesday, August 3.

The question of the growing extremes — growing again after growing exponentially for numerous election cycles — is evident in the message candidates and other assorted politicians are plying this election. Even more than the issues of cutting taxes or protecting education, the question of whether one is conservative enough or progressive enough (since the term “liberal” seems anethema to all but liberals who aren’t running for office) is pre-eminent.

Take for example Michael Trebesh, who is running against Rep. Brian Calley (R-Portland) in the tooth-and-nail fight for the GOP nomination in the 33rd Senate district. Mr. Trebesh said he was a “true conservative,” not a “part-time conservative.”

One reason Mr. Calley has gone part-time on the conservative ticket, according to Mr. Trebesh, is that he voted for the Michigan Business Tax to replace the Single Business Tax. Okay, most business groups backed the MBT so long ago in 2007. That it has become as hated as the SBT since then hardly makes the action of voting for the tax enough to make one a part-time conservative. Yet, there it be as evidence that Mr. Calley has abandoned the conservative cause.

What is problematic in this is the question of what is the definition of conservative (or liberal)? Is there one that can be universally agreed to? The now sadly forgotten Clinton Rossiter said that the first tenant of conservatism is to conserve…whatever religious values, economic ideas, academic values.

In looking at how conservatives and progressive-liberals define their ideological stance, it is clear that they see themselves as the embodiment of conservative/progressive-liberal “ism,” and whoever does not completely and wholly concur cannot, therefore, be a conservative or progressive-liberal.

The evidence of the growing extreme is also viewed in how candidates, politicians and their supporters refer to each other. Not to pick on conservatives, but look at Rep. David Agema (R-Grandville), who said he was endorsing a congressional candidate because he had the guts to stand up to “Obama’s socialism.”

Prowl the social media and you will see Democrats calling the other side “repubinuts” and Republicans calling their adversaries “demo-rats.”

This also indicates that whatever a candidate allegedly stands for no longer matters a whit to at least the most partisan voters so long as the candidate succeeds in triggering the right catchphrase in the voter’s mind. So it is Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero who has taken a big jump in the polls against House Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford Twp.), in part because supporters are trumpeting his abortion-rights stance and that he is the “true progressive.”

This trend plays into ongoing research into how people make decisions, hold onto decisions and refuse to change their minds even when there is demonstrable evidence they are wrong. Sadly, the research concludes that no matter how innately brilliant a person is, how many degrees he/she has, how many inventions he/she has patented or concepts he/she has developed, all are at heart…well, there is just no other way to say it…we are all stupid. One just has to think about how we actually bumble through life to confirm that sad reality.

And being basically dumb, we all of us respond to basic stimuli, and when the stimulus that most excites us has us all atwitter (in a non-Internet sense) we will not let it go. Which is why we have been meat-tenderized by the non-stop pounding of “conservative,” “progressive” until we fix on the one person who has prepped us best for the grill.

Okay, fine, but once elected, people still have to work with each other. One can reasonably fear the drive for the extremes means that if a conservative and a liberal…sorry, progressive…vote in favor of a resolution calling for the sun to rise in the east, they will be accused at the next election of not being a conservative or a progressive.

The success Mr. Bernero is having so far in the polls against Mr. Dillon indicates that hard work to get out a message can still trump money. Money is needed for advertising, and advertising is still critical to building a message and image (and the Genesee County Democratic Committee’s heavy ad buy on Mr. Bernero’s behalf shows that) because without it all the other retail politicking is useless. People want to see the person for whom they are asked to vote, they want to hear the person’s voice, they want to electrify the stimulus within. Once so electrified, then the retail politicking can pound the hell out of the basics to build identity and loyalty. That is what is working so far, according to the polls, for Mr. Bernero.

If state government remains split in 2011, with Republicans and Democrats controlling at least one element of the lawmaking process, the growing trend to the extreme makes it very unlikely that reaching common accord on issues will happen at all. This would be very bad for a state needing common accord desperately to help haul itself out of the economic sewer.

If government is united behind one party — and that, as of this writing, would more likely be the Republicans than it is the Democrats — the extreme elements may hold sway for a while. But their success will depend on public reaction to what they do. So even the extremists may evolve into something a little less extreme, which will make them ripe targets for the crop of uber-extremists they will face in another election.

But despite the fact we act less and less on the basis of issues, there are issues that help drive politics. The professional politicians understand the importance of these issues, and even though the issues may themselves not even come up in an election, they help drive strategy.

One gigantic-enormous-truly-hugely-awesome issue that dare not speak its name to the electorate is reapportionment. Redistricting. Who controls government controls where the lines are drawn. On that basis alone, both parties are willing to hurl themselves into the fire to ensure they win at least one branch or house of government.

Yet, yet, yet. All this is intellectually demonstrable, and yet…what if the voters, being basic plain, good old dumb boys and girls, throw all this out? What if, instead of shouting extremists, they want people who play nice? Who does that favor of the candidates out there?

The recent polls show several fascinating factors: there is still a large undecided vote among the electorate. And many of those voters who say they are voting for Sneezy or Grumpy or Bashful also say they are not committed to that vote. They could still change their mind. And if they do, what mischief might that engender to those who have hammered conservative/liberal until the terms ring hollow?

All this will be answered in some form late Tuesday. Even then, in spite of all the remarkably brilliant analysis, the answers could be absolutely nothing anyone anticipated. Should that happen, then we may all sigh in wonder as well as exasperation at the prospects November brings.

John Lindstrom is publisher of Gongwer News Service. For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.