COMMENTARY: No, politicos aren't the evil people you believe
They do reflect, however, the people we deserve.
by Martin Davis
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
If one election is past in Virginia, then the next election is already up and running. That’s especially true this year. The Republican and Democratic primaries for president are March 5, while primaries for other national offices (Senate and House) are slated for June 18.
But for just a moment in the New Year, voters do have time - if just barely - to catch their breath before worrying about who they’ll vote for. It’s also a good time to stop and think about the people who put themselves on the ballot.
In more than two decades covering politics, one habit among voters continues to befuddle me. The eagerness to demonize, villainize, and otherwise trash the reputations of people the vast majority of voters know next to nothing about apart from commercials and social media postings.
There’s no data to back up what I’m about to say, but over the years I’ve observed a correlation between the increased access to politicians’ personae via social media and people’s willingness to paint them as corrupt and liars.
Calling politicians “liars” is nothing new, of course, and there are times when they earn the label. However, the impact of carelessly labeling them as such is more damaging today than at any time in U.S. history.
The reality is, today’s politicians are no more or less moral than they’ve ever been as a group. Any more than are corporate leaders, blue collar workers, and professionals like teachers and doctors and lawyers.
What is different today is the speed with which the charge of liar, or of a slam that effectively dehumanizes a politician, infiltrates our society’s breadth and depth.
This problem is more than a curiosity. It’s fundamentally affecting our democracy.
Believe in your ability to bring about change
I do have one final ask of you as your President — the same thing I asked when you took a chance on me eight years ago. I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about change — but in yours.
-Barack Obama
Farewell Address
January 10, 2017
Obama’s challenge to citizens as he left the public stage was not to look to him, or others, to bring about the change they desired. But to understand and act upon the change that each of us is capable of bringing about.
This can occur on many levels. The easiest, and most important, is to exercise the right that too many of us take for granted - the simple act of voting.
Especially here in the Old Dominion, there is no reason to abdicate this responsibility. Early voting for the presidential primary begins January 19. For primary elections it’s May 3. And for the general election it’s September 20.
With that much time available to cast your vote, turnout should be over 90%. In fact, even at recent turnout rates, which have been the highest in decades, the U.S. still falls far behind other nations in turnout rate. Per Pew Research:
Even if predictions of higher-than-usual turnout come to pass, the United States likely will still trail many of its peers in the developed world in voting-age population turnout. In fact, when comparing turnout among the voting-age population in the 2020 presidential election against recent national elections in 49 other countries, the U.S. ranks 31st – between Colombia (62.5%) and Greece (63.5%).
Our poor showing in this area is a reflection of many things, but near the top of the list is the growing belief that what we do in politics really doesn’t matter. Perhaps more accurately, that our voice and our vote do not matter.
Why people believe this is less important than the reality that people do believe it. Depending on the election, anywhere between 35% and 60% of eligible voters will not bother to cast a ballot.
That lack of motivation helps explain why politicians and campaign professionals increasingly focus on attracting the most extreme factions within their respective parties. Campaigns are expensive, and people are loathe to spend money attracting a portion of the population proven uninterested in voting.
It’s more cost-effective to gin-up the base, which is far more likely to vote.
Coming Back to How We Treat Politicians
Because campaigns appeal to the bases, campaigns choose to focus on the negative.
That means, every flaw that can be unearthed, every misstep a person has ever made, every poor choice of words ever recorded becomes fodder for making a candidate look and sound evil.
The result is a hyperfocus on how bad a candidate can be made to look, and not so much on the skill sets and ideas any given candidate brings to the table.
Over 20 years of reporting on candidates in the wake of losing campaigns, I am increasingly hearing them ask a fundamental question: “Why would anyone put themselves through this?”
To run for office is to lose your life for an extended period of time. Your evenings are dedicated to attending events large and small, listening to voters both happy and angry, and constantly working to raise money for the next TV ad, the next mailer, or the next radio spot.
A campaign is a marathon run at a sprinter’s pacing. And under the best of circumstances, candidates go in knowing that regardless of what they say, they’re going to be vilified by about half the population.
Over the past two years, I’ve gotten to know many candidates personally - some better than others. People like Ben Litchfield and Monica Gary; Joel Griffin and Tara Durant; Chris Yakabouski and Nicole Cole; Tim Duffy and Scott Mayausky to name but a few. It’s one of the great joys of being a journalist.
About each of them I’ve written pieces that highlight their strengths and shine a light on their weaknesses. I’ve reported their victories and their missteps. I’ve seen them at their best, and I’ve seen them at their worst.
Some I grow to like personally; others I’m less fond of personally.
But very rarely have I ever encountered a person running for office who I believe to be a fundamentally bad person.
Most of them have a “why” for doing what they do. And having watched many campaigns and politicians in my career, I can say with certainty that politicians who don’t have sound personal reasons for running don’t finish the race. Or stay in the game long should they finish and win.
This year, as you begin to examine the people putting their names on the ballot, believe in your power to bring about change.
And believe that those seeking your vote are people who generally mean well - even if their ideas of doing well stand in stark contrast to your own.
This isn’t a call to act naively; it is a call extend a bit of grace, and search out your candidates’ better natures.
It’s a call to vote for what candidates believe in and speak affirmatively about, not vote for what they disparage or speak ill of.
Finally, it’s a call to believe in yourself, and that your vote is worth the effort to discover the good in those who seek your support.
The change we say we want - a healthier public debates - begins with creating a more-welcoming space for those we agree and disagree.
If that sounds naive, look at what negative campaigning and an innate distaste for any politician has gotten us. A series of elections that seem to grow viler by the year.
At a certain point, we get what we deserve. And if we aren’t happy with the status quo, we have it within us to change it.
It begins by believing your vote - your voice - matters. And it begins by believing that those who seek your support are coming from a place of well-meaning.
If we can learn to embrace that, then the elections who annually dread, have a chance to become events that create a national, state, and local debate we crave. One focused on people, and making things better for us all.
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit our website at the link that follows.
Become One of the Elite Eighty
W.P. Kinsella, author of Shoeless Joe Jackson Goes to Iowa (you may know it better as the movie “Field of Dreams,”) said it best.
If you build it, they will come.
This year we built the FXBG Advance, and readers have responded by coming in ever-larger numbers.
We thank each and every one of you who have made the Advance a part of your day, and we’re excited to say that more-exciting announcements are just around the corner as we continue to innovate and expand our coverage of the region.
The donations of individual donors are central to our success, and we’re hoping to add 80 more by the end of the year.
Where does your money go?
It goes to support the great journalists we have - like Adele Uphaus - and the ones we look to hire in the year ahead.
If you can spare $8 a month, we’ll be both grateful, and reward your trust in us with more journalism, more stories, and more connections to organizations and people who make our region a great place to live.
If you can’t, thank you for reading the FXBG Advance!, and consider sharing us with your friends.
In 2024, let’s build an even better Advance - together!
Thank you for reading and supporting FXBG Advance.
-Martin Davis, Editor
And to be even more contrarian, the complaint regarding the number of people voting.
Stating this one, not so much in certitude, but as a general idea that all givens should be open to challenge.
Is it in our, as a society's, best interest for everyone to vote? I'm not so sure. Just saw something in the WaPo that about 25% of Americans believe the FBI was the cause of Jan 6th. Now even if that were only 10%, and the rest were just saying it to bust people's chops - well, just because there are people who would do that, other contrarians like me, mostly. Still, that would mean 1 out of every 10 voters voting is delusional. Does that give you pause when they're deciding who carries the nuclear football?
It does me. It did in 2016, and 2020, and will in 2024. For good reason, I feel.
Then, you also read how many of our fellow citizens could not pass a citizenship test that immigrants pass. Should there be a knowledge test? Yes, I am well aware of how such tests have been abused in the past, with stacked questions, racist application, etc.
But is because it was performed in bad faith and led to bad results, does that mean it has no value? That's worth debate in my mind. We expect those doing other things such as driving, pulling teeth, wiring houses to have and be able to prove minimum competency. Is voting not worthy of such standards? A majority of Americans believe you shouldn't be able to operate guns, nuclear reactors, or M1A1 Abrams tanks without regulations and controls.
Isn't deciding who will operate and govern all of those things worthy of similar standards?
Why not?
I used to have a range instructor whom I admired. He had been an Army sniper back in the 1st Gulf War, you know, the fun one. Where we got to kill a bunch of people, hardly any of us got kilt, and we even got Kuwait to pay for it. Win, win, win. Right? Anyhoo, I digress.
And then he came back to be a VA State Trooper, and range instructor at the local police academy. He had a saying that always stuck with me. "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect."
The point being that if what you are practicing is incorrect, then practicing it is not going to make you correct. So before we thoughtlessly throw ideas out as given, shouldn't we be certain that they are true?
I've always been an admirer of Stan Lee, and one of his saying from Spiderman has also stuck with me through the years. That with great power comes great responsibility.
It's interesting to go onto Wikipedia, and review the discussion of that entry. It's origins in Luke 12:48, or Cicero's Sword of Damocles. The medieval ideal of noblesse oblige that colored so much of Virginia's founder's history.
Voting is a privilege and a power. With it comes responsibility. If you're not capable or willing to see it as such, and to make sure that you understand the issues, people, and position you're voting for, I'm not sure that you're doing us any favors by voting.
So it's not enough to just vote. Be an informed voter, a thoughtful voter, an responsible voter.
If you can't, do us a favor and just stay home......
Generally agree with this one. Still, a couple of contrarian thoughts, just to be, well....contrarian.
Wasn't it just the other day that an editorial was published here that was heavy on innuendo but thin on facts regarding Crystal Vanuch and other Stafford Republican's motives for not voting for a data center? If we're going to extend the courtesy of benefit of the doubt to pols that you like, such as Ms Gary, Ms Durant, etc. - to be effective, shouldn't it be generally extended to those you don't seem to like?
What's one of those new age paps that gets bandied about?
Be the change you want in others....yada, yada, yada.
Now does that mean that you stick your head in the sand and never condemn someone, no matter how outrageous? Nah. I think most folks can see the differences between the actions of a Twigg or Trump, and your everyday, garden variety Republican. Though it is fair to question their values if they continue to support such people even when not physically joining them in banning books or attempting to overthrow the Constitution.
Still, does delaying a procedural vote for 5 days for either genuine concern or a petty political opportunity to pad a resume rise to the same level of threat to our society as such seminal actions as censorship or violent treason?
Like the boy who cried wolf, if you see EVERY action in such a light, that brings your credibility and judgement into question. Rightly so.
It's not easy finding that balance, I know. I am sympathetic.
But you may want to cast that partisan log out of your own eye, before preaching to others how to do theirs. Still, it's a nice thought. Though easier said than done, ain't it?