Running for partisan public office - it's an unnatural act, at least for normal people. But then, those of us who ever did that are probably not normal anyway.
It seems only yesterday, but it has been five years since I was the Democratic nominee for Wisconsin's 80th District Assembly seat. The recent election of 2012 brought back memories of that exercise in democracy.
First, what a political campaign is not: It is not about intelligent discussion of complex issues. Theoretically, it should be. And yes, there are forums, usually not well attended, where there are intelligent questions and you are expected to render reasoned answers. And there are surveys and questionnaires by newspapers and various interest groups on a wide array of issues. These have little bearing on the final result.
On almost any issue - abortion, firearms, spending and tax policy, education, role of government - there are nuanced, reasonable positions. But nuanced positions don't dominate a campaign - they are drowned out, seen as wishy-washy, or, more likely, taken out of context, distorted, and exploited by one's opponent.
I recall one survey by a public interest group that asked some mighty tough questions. The political pros, including my experienced incumbent opponent, did not respond to that survey, the results of which would be publicized. As a naive first-time candidate, believing I was doing the right thing, I responded, answering tough questions in detail. How dumb that was.
In that survey, I stated that a sales tax should exempt food and pharmaceuticals to reduce its degree of regressivity - a position that any economist and reasonable person would endorse. My opponent and his out-of-state supporters seized upon that as "proof" that I would tax everything else, from wheel chairs to farm inputs.
But hey. That's politics. The Wisconsin State Journal had strongly urged that all, repeat, "all" candidates respond to that public interest survey. But they failed to name and commend those of us naive enough to have answered it. They endorsed my opponent, which they were going to do anyway. But since the editors of that rag so strongly recommend it, they could have at least named and commended us naive souls for "doing the right thing."
Newspaper endorsements - the regional papers endorsed my opponent, which was entirely predictable. But I thought the reasoning by the worthies at the Janesville Gazette was especially flimsy, dismissing my campaign as a post-career afterthought. Wouldn't want a politician to bring other-life experience to the table.
Which brings us to the old saw, "All's fair in love and war." One could add politics to that list, and the most unnatural act - asking people for money. The primary axiom in campaigning is "dominate the dominant medium." The dominant medium is television, and that costs money. My opponent had the dough while I had zero money for television.
I was trashed all over southern Wisconsin with bizarre, crazy television and radio ads, complete with my home phone number, urging voters to call and personally blast me. Some callers were from outside the district. Others, showing a touch of class, apologized for calling, not realizing it was my home number on those ads. With money, I could have used those same ads against my opponent.
Negative ads - people told me they didn't pay any attention to them, and tossed those nasty flyers without reading them. True enough, for most people. Then, a week before the election a guy came up to me after voting early. "Hey John, I hated to do it, but I had to vote against you."
"Why?" I responded.
"That flyer said you were going to give free health care to illegal immigrants. That really makes me mad."
"You don't really believe that bull#$%," I responded.
"Well," he replied, "They couldn't print it if it wasn't true."
I knew this guy couldn't simply be a minority of one.
Being blasted publicly on radio and television is a bazaar, surreal experience, realized only by candidates for public office and folks embarking on a life of crime. Some would insist there is no distinction.
Mothers universally think their kids can do no wrong. My mother, well into her elder years, always thought of me as that shy farm boy I once was. She would have been appalled, shocked, at those wild TV and radio ads and the blizzard of flyers trashing her son. My response would have been, "Relax, Mom. It's a compliment that my opponent and his rich out-of-state goon squads see me as such a threat that they're spending a fortune discrediting me."
It's true - the far greater insult would have been to be ignored as no credible threat to the entrenched, well-heeled professional incumbent.
By the time we have a few years on us and have been beaten up a few times by life's harsh realities, most of us learn to accept criticism, and even benefit from it. While we're not so thin skinned as to be devastated by criticism, few of us are so thick skinned that we can let it roll off without feeling. Let's face it - most of us care what others think and say about us.
Tougher than the negative TV and radio ads, and blizzard of trashy flyers, is when people that you like and respect publicly endorse the other guy. I gotta admit, that stings a bit. But you know in advance it will happen and have to be prepared to deal with reality and shake it off.
During the campaign, many people said to me, "John, if I would have to go through what you're going through, I will never run for public office." That's sad. It keeps some good people from running.
There was one ridiculous flyer I almost enjoyed - subtlety tying me to one of my all-time favorite movies.
Next week: Queen of diamonds and The Manchurian Candidate.
- John Waelti of Monroe can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears each Friday in The Monroe Times.
It seems only yesterday, but it has been five years since I was the Democratic nominee for Wisconsin's 80th District Assembly seat. The recent election of 2012 brought back memories of that exercise in democracy.
First, what a political campaign is not: It is not about intelligent discussion of complex issues. Theoretically, it should be. And yes, there are forums, usually not well attended, where there are intelligent questions and you are expected to render reasoned answers. And there are surveys and questionnaires by newspapers and various interest groups on a wide array of issues. These have little bearing on the final result.
On almost any issue - abortion, firearms, spending and tax policy, education, role of government - there are nuanced, reasonable positions. But nuanced positions don't dominate a campaign - they are drowned out, seen as wishy-washy, or, more likely, taken out of context, distorted, and exploited by one's opponent.
I recall one survey by a public interest group that asked some mighty tough questions. The political pros, including my experienced incumbent opponent, did not respond to that survey, the results of which would be publicized. As a naive first-time candidate, believing I was doing the right thing, I responded, answering tough questions in detail. How dumb that was.
In that survey, I stated that a sales tax should exempt food and pharmaceuticals to reduce its degree of regressivity - a position that any economist and reasonable person would endorse. My opponent and his out-of-state supporters seized upon that as "proof" that I would tax everything else, from wheel chairs to farm inputs.
But hey. That's politics. The Wisconsin State Journal had strongly urged that all, repeat, "all" candidates respond to that public interest survey. But they failed to name and commend those of us naive enough to have answered it. They endorsed my opponent, which they were going to do anyway. But since the editors of that rag so strongly recommend it, they could have at least named and commended us naive souls for "doing the right thing."
Newspaper endorsements - the regional papers endorsed my opponent, which was entirely predictable. But I thought the reasoning by the worthies at the Janesville Gazette was especially flimsy, dismissing my campaign as a post-career afterthought. Wouldn't want a politician to bring other-life experience to the table.
Which brings us to the old saw, "All's fair in love and war." One could add politics to that list, and the most unnatural act - asking people for money. The primary axiom in campaigning is "dominate the dominant medium." The dominant medium is television, and that costs money. My opponent had the dough while I had zero money for television.
I was trashed all over southern Wisconsin with bizarre, crazy television and radio ads, complete with my home phone number, urging voters to call and personally blast me. Some callers were from outside the district. Others, showing a touch of class, apologized for calling, not realizing it was my home number on those ads. With money, I could have used those same ads against my opponent.
Negative ads - people told me they didn't pay any attention to them, and tossed those nasty flyers without reading them. True enough, for most people. Then, a week before the election a guy came up to me after voting early. "Hey John, I hated to do it, but I had to vote against you."
"Why?" I responded.
"That flyer said you were going to give free health care to illegal immigrants. That really makes me mad."
"You don't really believe that bull#$%," I responded.
"Well," he replied, "They couldn't print it if it wasn't true."
I knew this guy couldn't simply be a minority of one.
Being blasted publicly on radio and television is a bazaar, surreal experience, realized only by candidates for public office and folks embarking on a life of crime. Some would insist there is no distinction.
Mothers universally think their kids can do no wrong. My mother, well into her elder years, always thought of me as that shy farm boy I once was. She would have been appalled, shocked, at those wild TV and radio ads and the blizzard of flyers trashing her son. My response would have been, "Relax, Mom. It's a compliment that my opponent and his rich out-of-state goon squads see me as such a threat that they're spending a fortune discrediting me."
It's true - the far greater insult would have been to be ignored as no credible threat to the entrenched, well-heeled professional incumbent.
By the time we have a few years on us and have been beaten up a few times by life's harsh realities, most of us learn to accept criticism, and even benefit from it. While we're not so thin skinned as to be devastated by criticism, few of us are so thick skinned that we can let it roll off without feeling. Let's face it - most of us care what others think and say about us.
Tougher than the negative TV and radio ads, and blizzard of trashy flyers, is when people that you like and respect publicly endorse the other guy. I gotta admit, that stings a bit. But you know in advance it will happen and have to be prepared to deal with reality and shake it off.
During the campaign, many people said to me, "John, if I would have to go through what you're going through, I will never run for public office." That's sad. It keeps some good people from running.
There was one ridiculous flyer I almost enjoyed - subtlety tying me to one of my all-time favorite movies.
Next week: Queen of diamonds and The Manchurian Candidate.
- John Waelti of Monroe can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears each Friday in The Monroe Times.
