A Prime Reason So Few Candidates Are Running For The Statehouse.
By Emil Franzi
SUDDENLY THE MEDIA are asking another big question: Why
aren't more people running for office? Since they noticed that
fewest candidates had filed for the state Legislature in history,
the subject has been tossed around on the TV news and was a front-page
lead for the local daily on a recent Sunday morning.
The media attribute the lack of candidates to a variety of reasons:
low pay, too many safe districts, term limits, a "lack of
civility" among elected officials and abuse from the public.
One former pol-turned-lobbyist even lamented, "It isn't fun
anymore."
What most of stories didn't mention was the most obvious reason:
The stories about the lack of candidates were the first real local
political stories any of the local media had run all year. The
real answer for all the analysts trying to figure out why nobody
is running is simple: Like the media itself, too many people no
longer consider elective politics to be important. Why are you
so surprised?
Jay Leno once described politics as show biz for the ugly. (Always
thought that was radio myself.) The almost complete disdain modern
establishment journalism exhibits for the political process, including
its failure to adequately cover candidates seeking public office,
is the largest single contributing factor to the decline in those
seeking it. One prime example: a local candidate for the state
Legislature asked a local TV reporter if the station was going
to cover his race. He was told they never cover primaries. He
explained that his race would be decided in by the primary, since
no one had filed to run in the opposing primary. He got the same
answer. Translated, the policy is: "We don't give a shit."
Gee, why should you the voter? Or the potential candidate?
The next largest factor is media inability to tell us--or even
grasp--what it is the folks we vote for do after they get
there. Best example: We get a cursory view of what our legislators
pass, but the local dailies who are fully equipped with Phoenix
reporters don't bother to report simple vote tallies, like which
senator voted for what.
And there seems to be a space limitation on what can be covered
at a City Council or Board of Supervisors meeting. If the agenda
is crowded, most items are ignored, as are vote tallies. Some
of those votes might make somebody mad enough to run against
the elected officials who cast them--if they knew about them.
The standard reasons given by the usual suspects--incumbents,
lobbyists, consultants, and party "leaders"--for declining
numbers of candidates are crapola. Low pay? The state legislature
pays $15,000 per year, along with other goodies, like an $85-per-day,
tax-free per diem to lawmakers outside Maricopa County, plus mileage,
for what is a part-time job. Are there special sessions? Always
have been, some longer than recent episodes. Does the per diem
kick in for those? You bet. There were more candidates back when
the pay was only $2,400 a year (and the per diem $20) in the '70s,
and the quality of those candidates was at least as good as now.
(Some think better.)
Too many safe districts? There always were. And today's districts
are a lot more competitive than the weenie party leaders and cautious
consultants make them out to be, because fewer people vote a straight
ticket. And that still doesn't explain the lack of primaries,
which safe districts for one party should help encourage, not
discourage.
Term limits may have caused some folks to wait until next time
to run. The jury's still out on that one; we'll know in two years.
But its effect is over-rated and usually comes from lifer pols
and hangers-on who didn't like term limits in the first place.
As to a "lack of civility" in the Legislature discouraging
candidates, that is clearly in-house politically narcissistic
bullshit.
Patrick Henry didn't run for the Virginia House of Burgesses
to get along with his colleagues, particularly the ones wearing
powdered wigs. Neither did Sam Adams up the road in Massachusetts,
nor did John Quincy Adams. They ran to implement an agenda, as
have many since, from Abe Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt. And that,
folks, is the other real problem. No agendas.
Political parties are now afraid to have them--might offend somebody
in the middle or, worse, in the media. Party platforms are open
jokes. Can any of the fast-diminishing group of people who actually
participate in the affairs of the two major parties tell you what's
in any of them? If you stand for nothing, how do you motivate
people to carry a meaningless banner? Political parties have degenerated
into vehicles for soft campaign money and little more.
There used to be mammoth fights over who controlled the two local
parties, with the weenies always whining that the major disputes
over issues were "divisive." So they quit having them--and
wonder why they now meet in phone booths. A few years back some
folks were bitching about the GOP being taken over by the "Christian
Right." The real phenomenon was that anybody cared enough
about it to take it over.
It shows at all levels of government. People get elected as nominal
members of a political party not based on any set agendas. It
then becomes impossible for them to have a coherent program and
we get the mush we have now in Phoenix or Sacramento or Washington,
D.C. Political parties used to resolve most internal differences
before the election, not after. They used to be afraid
to offend the interest groups that made up their coalition. They
no longer have that many interest groups to worry about, because
the interest groups--from the tobacco lobby to environmentalists--have
gone bipartisan and deal with candidates directly.
This would work if the interest groups themselves were big enough
to generate their own candidacies, but they aren't and haven't.
And when they occasionally do, the media refer to them as "single-issue"
candidates and wonder openly why they don't have a broader base.
Many people still participate in politics, but through issue-oriented
organizations ranging from Greenpeace to the NRA. Others don't
run for office; they file lawsuits. Those who want to change public
policy have noticed that the accent has changed from legislating
solutions to litigating them. The judicial branch now does the
legislating for us, as you may have noticed over the current educational
finance crisis. Just as bad, the lawyers have replaced party leaders
in telling elected officials what they can and cannot do as they
second-guess what the judiciary will think. Why run for potted
plant?
Americans and Arizonans care as much as ever about their society.
Unfortunately too many of them have decided that the standard
political process is breaking down and they're too busy elsewhere
to take time to fix it. And the media have decided they don't
really give a rat's ass and have abdicated their responsibility
to conduct decent political reporting. They don't lead--they try
to follow, usually the results of the latest focus group or marketing
consultant. That's why national magazines like Time and
Newsweek look more and more like People and you
can't find out who's running for governor in the next state. Here,
you can't find out who's running for the state House in your own
district.
So why would you be surprised if, someday, nobody did?
Listen to Emil Franzi's radio rage every Monday from 10 a.m.
to 1 p.m. on KTKT, 990-AM.
|