WASHINGTON — If the midterm election were a Broadway-bound show, it would have folded by now. The turnouts in the primaries — the equivalent of out-of-town tryouts — have been miserable. Voters have stayed away from the polls in droves. If "angels" invested in campaigns the way they do in theatrical productions, they would have to post closing notices for candidates and consultants and say, "Folks, much as we love you, we’re not going to throw away our money on something the public doesn’t want."
Fortunately, the Constitution requires elections to be held at regular intervals, so that those in office can explain and justify their actions to their constituents and those seeking office will have an opportunity to present their credentials and their ideas.
That, at least, is how the Founders envisaged the political system, and that is why they ordained that every two years, some of those serving in Washington and the state capitals would have to face the voters.
That is not how the voters I have met this year in California, Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Massachusetts and other states see the campaigns. They are — many of them — disgusted by the amounts of money being raised and spent, by the distortions and misrepresentations and oversimplifications of the TV spots, and by the generally negative tone of the rhetoric. So when the candidates present themselves, the constituents — 70 percent or 80 percent or more of those eligible to vote — turn their backs and do not vote.
The flight from politics, the mass refusal to participate in the most basic responsibility of the citizen of the republic, would be grounds for criticism at any time. It is particularly unworthy for citizens of a nation which claims before the world the right to judge the acceptability of leaders of other lands — a nation which promotes "regime change" in Iraq and which tells the Palestinians to replace Yasser Arafat.
But there is another, less elevated reason to reproach ourselves for what amounts to our national boycott of candidates and campaigns. And that is, simply, that there are some damn good people running and some very competitive races in the offing.
Take the race for governor of Massachusetts, which I was covering recently. The Republican candidate is Mitt Romney, who learned his sense of civic obligation from his father, George, a reform-minded governor of Michigan and one-time presidential candidate, and his mother, Lenore, who ran for the Senate when few women even contemplated such a step. Mitt Romney, like his dad, has turned from a successful business career to public service, rescuing the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from scandal and financial distress, and now offering his state, which suffers from the same afflictions, a similar service.
But you don’t have to accept Romney, if his ideas and solutions and personality are not to your liking. The four Democrats vying to oppose him in Tuesday’s primary are no slouches. Shannon O’Brien, the state treasurer, comes from a family steeped for generations in Bay State politics, and she prepped for this race at Yale and with years of apprenticeship in the Massachusetts Legislature.
State Senate President Tom Birmingham is a blue-collar guy who chose to represent unions, not corporations, as a lawyer, and whose work in the Legislature includes major contributions to education reform, health care protection and a higher minimum wage.
Former state Sen. Warren Tolman is also from humble origins. His time in the Legislature on Beacon Hill made him an advocate for campaign finance reform, and this year, the stubborn soul who forced the politicians to heed the public demand for publicly financed campaigns.
And finally, Robert Reich, the professor of economics and social policy and former U.S. labor secretary, who has assembled a pop-star’s following of young people. As he rightly boasts, "they will be the next generation of Democratic leaders in this state," regardless of what happens to him this year.
These are worthy people, and I have found a lot more like them running in other states. Unfashionable though it may be, I am here to assert that the quality of candidates at all levels, but especially for governor, is rising — not falling. As the barriers to women and minorities are reduced, the level of expected competence continues to improve.
As for the quality of competition, Charlie Cook, my favorite handicapper, lists eight Senate contests and 11 governors’ races as pure toss-ups, too close to make either party a favorite, and a good many more (including Massachusetts) where either party stands a reasonable chance of winning.
This is a campaign to savor — not to scorn.
David Broder can be reached at The Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-9200.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.