Could we possibly be seeing signs to suggest that negative campaigning – long thought to be the key to a candidate’s political survival – is not the sure-fire solution to winning a close race?
Consider two recent examples.
In the fall of 2002, a retired business executive and political novice named Don Carcieri tirelessly campaigned throughout the state as the Republican nominee for governor, introducing himself to literally thousands of Rhode Islanders who had never heard of him. He kept on message, talking about running government more like a business and focusing a platform on job-creation strategies.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
Meanwhile, Democrat Myrth York, a former state senator, campaigned for the third time as a gubernatorial hopeful, with a well-organized team and name recognition that far surpassed that of Carcieri.
But then a funny thing happened. After a fast start by York, the race started to tighten up. York’s veteran national advisors suggested she go negative. So York fired away at the business record of Carcieri. But Carcieri didn’t bite. He kept talking about creating jobs and cutting the fat out of bloated state budgets.
York went more negative.
Carcieri stayed on message – and won going away.
Last Monday in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, of Massachusetts, and U.S. Sen. John Edwards, of North Carolina, finished comfortably ahead of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who had been the frontrunner just a couple of weeks ago, and U.S. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, of Missouri, whom political pundits expected to do well in his neighboring state.
So what happened?
Well, Dean and Gephardt got nasty and attacked one another. Kerry, hoping to resurrect a floundering campaign, unveiled a series of strong television ads that largely ignored his opponents, focusing rather on his patriotism and record as a hero in the Vietnam War.
Edwards seemed intent on outworking everyone else, appearing at one gathering after another – shaking one hand after another.
In the end, the well-oiled machines of Dean and Gephardt were left to regroup – to ponder what went wrong and what they should do to fix it in time for this week’s primary in New Hampshire. And the national pundits spoke of Kerry and Edwards “riding a wave of emotion.”
Negative campaigning is not going to go away anytime soon. There are simply too many examples of it having worked.
But as we move closer to another election season here in Rhode Island, we
can only hope that candidates consider the above examples and think long and
hard before choosing personal attacks over delivering issue-orientated messages.
Disclosure law long overdue
In other news from the world of politics, Secretary of State Matt Brown plans to submit legislation in the coming weeks that would strengthen the state ethics law.
His proposal would require state elected officials to disclose all entities that provide them with significant sources of income if those entities are registered to lobby state government.
“We need full disclosure in order to have public confidence in our government,” said Brown.
Brown’s proposal would add new language to Rhode Island General Laws 36-14-17, which details the contents of the annual financial statements which elected officials must file with the state Ethics Commission. The legislation would require elected officials who have other sources of income, such as lawyers, small-business owners and insurance agents, to disclose any “person, corporation or association who has engaged any person to act as a lobbyist” in state government and provide the official with $1,000 or more during the calendar year.
The only thing strange about Brown’s proposal is that it does not already
exist. Such a disclosure is hardly an invasion of privacy for someone elected
to public office. They are, after all, elected to do the people’s business,
not their own.
Add talent, whenever possible
As a die-hard fan of the Miami Dolphins, it is with great difficulty that I pay tribute to the New England Patriots. But it is fitting to note – and perhaps there is a lesson here for business owners – that Tom Brady, who already has one Super Bowl MVP trophy on his mantel, was a sixth round draft choice (199th overall player) in the 2001 NFL draft. In fact, the Patriots didn’t need him. They had a healthy Drew Bledsoe and able backups.
But Head Coach Bill Belichick insisted on using a draft pick on the kid from the University of Michigan.
What may have seemed like an innocuous selection at the time, may well turn out to be the smartest draft choice in team history.
It goes to show that when you have an opportunity to add a special talent to your organization, you do so.
The details will work themselves out.
