A Senate Race's Ads Absurdum
SEATTLE -- Here in Washington state we don't care for partisanship and negativity, which leaves our candidates with not much to talk about. "Look," says Republican Senate candidate Mike McGavick, "if the Republican Party came to me and said, 'Mike, we want you to vote against the families of your state,' I'd tell them to go jump. I'll choose the people of our state every time."
Wow. This must be one of those "hard choices" McGavick, a former insurance executive, says he is prepared to make if he is sent to the Senate. He does not supply any other examples. My idea of a hard choice would be having to choose between the short-term interests of the people -- yes, even the families -- of your state and the long-term interests of the nation. Through the fog of generalities, McGavick appears to see things differently.
A news release entitled "Mike Takes a Tough Line on Federal Spending Reforms" is mostly about federal grants to the University of Washington. But he supports this spending, of course, and deplores the cuts that have been made in it, which he attributes to "budget mismanagement." He made this point in a day spent campaigning with Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who was here in his capacity as a Hispanic and not as anyone who might bear responsibility for the federal budget.
If you knew nothing about Mike McGavick except what is in his TV commercials and on his Web site, you would conclude either that he is a moron or that he thinks you are a moron. Democratic incumbent Maria Cantwell's ads aren't so wonderful either. They're mainly about all the federal money and other favors she's brought to the state. But if any of this is part of the "pork barrel . . . wasteful, out-of-control spending" that upsets McGavick, he doesn't say so.
And of course there is a subtext to each of the inanities in McGavick's commercials. They have all been focus-grouped and market-tested. For example, in one news release expressing his "disappointment" (I bet) that Cantwell had voted against some tax cut, McGavick says, "This isn't really about Senator Cantwell." It's about "partisan nonsense." Cantwell is (the headline mentions) "Following Party Over State's Interests."
Now ask yourself: Why would she do that? Why would she put her party's interests over those of her constituents? Who cares enough about either party to actually put their own political futures in peril? Answer: no one. Taken literally, the charge is absurd. But it's not meant to be taken literally. It is just part of the miasma of themes and images that political professionals create around candidates. Cantwell is popular, partisanship is not. So blame partisanship and not Cantwell. Be for "families." Be for "change." Be against "Washington, D.C." and "lobbyists."
The media do a better and better job each election cycle at pointing out and analyzing these campaign constructs. But by doing so, in a way, they legitimize it all. By raising up the subtext, they diminish the importance of the text. Don't be naive: You're not supposed to take this stuff literally. Politicians are trying to push your buttons. They aren't trying to communicate with you.
In a radio spot this week called "Not Paying Attention," McGavick says, "Folks in Washington, D.C., you know they must not think we are paying attention" to "some of the things they are getting away with." In a rare particular, he blames "automatic pay raises" for creating bad incentives for members of Congress. "We've got to have change," he says, "but the only way to do that is to change who represents us."
Maria Cantwell hit it big in the dot-com boom and is a very rich woman. She has spent tens of millions of dollars on her election and reelection campaigns. Whatever her flaws, she cannot possibly care about a pay raise. Taken literally, the notion that any national politician assumes that the voters and media and opposition party are "not paying attention" is equally ridiculous. So what is her motivation? What is McGavick's, for that matter? (He's rich, too, having struck gold in just a few years in the insurance business.)
In an age when senators have almost no power to affect the actual course of events, and when most of them don't seem to have any particular notion of what they would do with that power if they had it -- McGavick certainly doesn't -- why anyone bothers to be a senator is a fascinating question. Is Cantwell devoting her life to betraying the families of Washington just for the fun of it?
McGavick has no explanation, except to say that "this stuff is nuts," that it is "partisan nonsense" and so on. But Maria Cantwell is not nuts. "Nuts" is not a plausible explanation. And without any specifics or a plausible explanation, McGavick's complaints are exceptionally empty.
Knowing virtually nothing about McGavick, I saw one of his 30-second spots last week and took an instant, personal and possibly unfair dislike to him. And I wonder why everyone doesn't have the same reaction to these patronizing, insulting commercials. Maybe some do -- McGavick is going to lose, apparently -- but more must be turned on than are turned off, because McGavick is not nuts either.