I haven’t given up on electoral politics, even though we’ve seen results now that could tempt even a passionate small-R republican to ask King Charles III to come on over, and resume reigning where George III left off. Because our system of choosing leaders has been doing a shocking job of showing off its failings lately. (And the word “shocking” is an understatement here. I guess I’m just trying to be cool about it.)
I haven’t given up because there are still people out there worth electing, if only we could elect enough of them. And if only enough of them would run, because these days we’re talking about only a very tiny percentage of those who make themselves available. The good people are probably down in the single digits, because so few good candidates are willing to subject themselves to the process.
But as I said, we have some, and I’m grateful for each one. You’ll recall how pleased I was when Russell Ott became my state senator back in November. I had done what I could to help make it happen — doing such pitifully small things as going around and talking neighbors into putting up yard signs for him, and introducing him to friends and family a couple of times. Maybe I got him one vote, or even two — for which, if it’s so, I’m proud. But obviously, a lot of people were doing small things like what I did. And Russell was doing plenty all by himself.
Anyway, I’m very pleased at the result. So even now, I occasionally make a tiny gesture toward helping the occasional good candidate — even when I can’t vote for that person. So it was that some weeks back, I sent a miniscule cash contribution to Abigail Spanberger, the former congresswoman who is running for governor in Virginia.
I’ve never met her, but I’ve liked what I’ve read about her. My friend E.J. Dionne up in Washington has said a lot of good things about her, and sometime back he told me I would like her. I’m pretty sure he’s right.
Anyway, I bring her up today because I got an email from her campaign unveiling the first video ad of her campaign. You can watch it above. There’s not much to it, but what little there is reinforces my existing positive impression. My favorite factoid? When she boasts of having been named the most bipartisan member of Congress from Virginia. The fact that she wants people to know that is what’s important. What makes her appealing to me is that she aspires to such recognition. Almost no one else running campaigns these days would care about that. Too many ads tend to boast about how much the candidate hates the “other side.”
(My second favorite thing is that throughout the ad, she’s doing that “walking and talking” thing that we all know from “The West Wing.” But you know, I’m kinda West Wing crazy.)
But whether I liked it or not is beside the point. She didn’t spend all that money on an ad for me. She did it to try to explain, as well as anyone could in 30 seconds, who she was to people who have never heard of her — despite her having served three terms in Congress from the state.
She has to do that because of what has been, historically, the greatest flaw in democracy. Sure, there are plenty of people in Virginia — especially northern Virginia, where she’s from — who know far, far more about her than I do, and will vote for her as a result. By “plenty,” we’re talking a number somewhere in the thousands. But that’s not nearly enough. More than three million people voted in the last Virginian gubernatorial election.
You’ll recall, I hope, that when someone reportedly told Adlai Stevenson that “Every thinking person in America will be voting for you,” he replied, “I’m afraid that won’t do — I need a majority.” Well, he didn’t get that, losing twice to Dwight Eisenhower for president in the ’50s. Hey, I probably would have voted for Ike, too, given the chance. But I do appreciate a smart, perhaps too-honest candidate like Stevenson.
In his day, and even more in our own, the necessary majority contains a staggering number of people who don’t know who you are, don’t know much (if anything) about the powers and responsibilities of the office you’re seeking, don’t know the relevant issues, and have no overall understanding of how our political system works. I can’t cite you a percentage or anything, but there’s enough such people that you can’t win your majority without a large number of them.
You can only do so much toward turning those folks into “informed voters.” The first and most essential step is simply to expose them to your name, because a shocking number of them will vote on democracy’s most embarrassing basis — name recognition. And then — because your opponent will be grabbing for name recognition too — you’ve also got something to give them some kind of idea who the person behind that name is.
It was our biggest challenge when I was on James Smith’s campaign in 2018. I don’t have those polls we did in front of me, but I seem to remember learning from them that among voters who knew who James was, he was winning. But that number was too small, so we knew that our only chance at victory was to greatly increase it. But we could never afford to do that. We especially couldn’t do it after Henry had a week or so of giving lengthy hurricane briefings every day on TV, which didn’t cost him a dime. I’m not criticizing Henry for that, not a bit. He was doing his job, and our position on it was the say people should listen to the governor. But the political fact is that Jeff Bezos would probably have to scrape to pay for that much exposure, and every bit of it had the subtext, “I’m Henry McMaster, I’m the governor, and I’m keeping you safe.” Them’s the breaks, huh? We could never catch up with that.
Hey, I like Henry. But I knew James was the better candidate. Indications were that most people who knew both men agreed with me. But in our system, the people who actually know enough to be informed voters are too seldom enough for victory.
Just as was the case with Adlai Stevenson. But he lost to a great American. Poor Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump. So did Hillary Clinton.
So why are things so much worse today than in Stevenson’s day? After all, today we’re all drinking “information” from a fire hose, in a volume unimaginable in the 1950s. Trouble is, most of it is junk that comes at us because an algorithm has determined that this is what we want to hear, as opposed to what we need to know to be good citizens. And even the tiny remnants of legacy professional media — the kind people relied upon a generation ago — is affected by that poisonous distortion, in a couple of big ways (another long blog post, alas).
Anyway, to get back to Abigail Spanberger… I’m encouraged that as a congresswoman who served six years in Virginia’s 7th District, she’s got more of a head start than James ever had as a state lawmaker of 24 years. But introducing herself is still something she must do, successfully, to win.
So while I know I won’t ever be able to do enough to help her achieve that goal, I do like to chip in. If I can come up with a few (very few) more bucks, I’ll contribute again. I like to do my infinitessimal bit, when I can…
There was Henry on the telly ever day, telling us how to survive the hurricane…
Related Posts
Ruminating a bit more on my use of “shocking” in that lede — a use that reflects my desire at that point to move along and get to my point.
But how DO you describe what has happened to our country? It’s not just Trump or his followers or the precessors such as the Tea Party, or the wackiest “woke” notions that created engraved invitations for the right to bring back the Trump nightmare, squared.
I’ve tried to explain how hobbled we are since professional journalism (mostly) collapsed and America (and other countries) started seriously considering social media their prime source of information, political and otherwise. Here’s how that works: A friend or loved one or mere acquaintance will tell me about some unlikely item that he or she has just run acros. I say, “Where did you read it?” The answer is something like “Facebook.” Then I ask the real question: “Where did the person (whoever it was) who put it on Facebook get it? What’s the source? Is it reliable? And the person — and I’m talking smart people here, from across the political spectrum — will have no idea. And by the time we get that far, my source has moved on to 10 other things.
It’s not just social media. If I had time, I’d rant for a bit about the AI summaries that now appear at the top of your Google searches. “Here’s all you need to know,” they seem to announce, when of course it isn’t. You don’t know where in the world the AI dug that up from. Oh, it might be better (and frequently is) than something some human yahoo dumped onto Facebook, but then again it may be worse. Sure, there’s a definite shortage of (apparent) intelligence in our country and our world today, but it’s not going to be replaced by the artificial kind. Not if you see “intelligence” as suggesting understanding, discernment, perspicacity or the highest goal of all, wisdom.
In an environment such as this, with almost no one capable of thinking straight any more, you’re just not going to see many truly worthwhile candidates raising their hands to be mauled by the madding crowd. You tend instead to get the people who are all about the madness — who love it, and believe they thrive amid it.
So we have to welcome the few good ones with open arms.
But that’s not what I was going to say in this addendum. I was going to say that I’ve remembered a word, or rather a phrase, that better expresses what I meant above by “shocking” — or at least, it might for those who at some time in their lives have been Hemingway fanatics, as I was in my youth.
It’s this: “A Way You’ll Never Be,” the title of a 1933 short story. Here’s a synopsis, in case you haven’t read it — but go read it.
Nick Adam, the protagonist, has been wounded in the head on the front of the War to End All Wars, and he’s kind of stumbling along confused by a combination of the wound and shell shock — what we call PTSD today. You can tell he’s not right. Every other person he runs into can tell.
And this is a way that Nick would never have expected he would be (at least, that’s the way I’ve always interpreted the title). And I never in my life, before about 2016, would have believed our country could have sunk to where we find it today…
She should win as governor there. She’s popular and reasonable. Polls indicate the Democrat should be in good shape there.
The Republican side is – well- I won’t say it. I’ll leave it at that.
Must have been the midterms of 2018 when I stayed up so late watching to see if Dems could take back the House. Abigail Spanberger, Mikie Sherrill, Elaine Luria among others beat the odds and flipped the House. Although Luria lost her reelection, these people along with Andy Beshear, Roy Cooper, Gretchen Whitmer are the leaders of tomorrow. Move over old codgers, it’s time for a change. The Old Guard kicked to the curb my guy Joe. Now it’s their turn to step aside.
What do you think of Seth Moulton?
I like Moulton. I watched him on CSPAN methodically, surgically shred Hegseth. He appears to possess the credentials and platform, but not certain he has the charisma for the cameras though.
OBTW, I forgot Crockett and AOC and probably a few other leaders of tomorrow.
Well, I’m not with you on AOC and I don’t know know enough about Crockett (except Davy, and our own David, both of whom I like fine) to have an opinion. But I like Spanberger, and I like Moulton.
Of course, with Moulton, there’s a certain amount of gratitude mixed in, as he did what he could to help us from afar during our 2018 campaign. Y’all know that James Smith (and of course Mandy Powers Norrell) are both my kind of Democrats, and Moulton is their knd (certainly James’), and that makes him my kind, too, I suppose…
A politician’s character is defined by the policies he or she embraces. Politicians who have, for example, encouraged and supported the world’s richest man in disassembling and de-funding an organization whose purpose has been to aid the world’s poorest and most destitute do not possess good character. Further evidence of their lack of good character lies in their support for giving yet more unnecessary and irresponsible tax breaks to the country’s comfortable while taking away supports going to its needy and infirm. These two alone show not just a lack of good character, they are testimony of bad character. It says everything about who they are as a public official.
Oh, you might be interested in reading this. Seems that since his breakup with the Donald, he’s been up to something in our neck of the woods…
Under the radar, Elon Musk’s Tesla opens a South Carolina distribution center
Thanks, but I’ve never been interested in Musk. He’s a real bad character (or should I say “hombre”?) — with behavioral issues that yell out for professional help.
Well, yeah, which is why he bears watching when he’s doing some thing “under the radar” in one’s neighborhood. That being my point…
Spending tax dollars on foreign aid while America has its own problems is not sign of moral character.. particularly when BILLIONS of those dollars are stolen or wasted and no positive results can be seen. WE ARE IN DEBT UP TO OUR EYEBALLS! We don’t have the money to spend on whatever feelgood program you think we should fund.
You want foreign aid, give YOUR money, not mine. You want to feel good about yourself, don’t use my tax dollars to prop up your self righteous sainthood.
Of course, I take the opposite position. But that’s because, as has long been established, we’re not talking about “my money” or “your money.” Any discussion of public expenditures, whether for foreign or domestic purposes, is a discussion about what we are going to do with “our money.” And every citizen is free and encouraged to participate, through the representatives they elect, in the process of deciding what taxes to levee, and how to spend the money that is OURS once it comes in.
I know that, being a libertarian, you don’t believe that is the case. But it is. And you can’t have a civilization without some means of making decisions regarding the pooling of resources produced by a society’s economy for expenditure on public purposes.
And yes, if you live in the post-1945 world, and particulaly the part of the post-1945 world called the United States, expenditures on foreign aid is a legitimate, and often very necessary, public purpose. And I know you don’t believe that, either, which is more of an isolationist attitude than libertarian one, but either way, we simply disagree…