Montanans who have endured the relentlessly negativistic, divisive and distinctly un-helpful political advertising that has dominated this election cycle — which is to say, all of us — will not be surprised by this insight:
Voters are not happy.
Two weeks ago, The Monitor asked readers to complete a short survey seeking their opinion on the state of our politics and the upcoming election. I’ll be up front: This exercise was in no way scientific — just us asking questions, and about 100 people responding.
Still, those responses were, I think, pretty telling.
We asked, for one thing, whether folks thought candidates were “running substantive, issues-based campaigns that help [us] make informed decisions on who to vote for.” Just 44% of respondents agreed, and only 8% strongly, that candidates for national offices were doing so; about a half thought the same for state and local candidates.
To be fair, as a few survey-takers pointed out, the quality of campaigns varies with the candidate, and some can be seen as more issue-focused than others.
But still: A majority of people said this year’s political campaigning isn’t doing what it’s supposed to: Providing information that allow citizens to vote in a thoughtful way. Can we be at all surprised by that? All you have to do is turn on the TV, or watch an online video, or turn the page of this newspaper, to experience the barrage of polarizing hype.
“It’s exhausting and depressing,” one respondent wrote. Observed another: “National and state politics is ugly, unsettling, and at best pathetic. Mostly negative ads and tearing down opponents [with] very minimal campaigning on records. The moderates and independent citizen voters are mostly ignored during the campaign shouting.”
We also asked: Do candidates “understand and reflect what’s important to [you]?” Some 55% of people said national candidates did not; 43% said state and local candidates didn’t. “I am discouraged that our leaders do not seem to want to uphold their oath to represent and serve their constituents,” one person wrote. Another said: “Candidates from all sides only communicate with us when it is election year. My distrust of our elected officials is at an all-time high.”
In case any candidates are reading this, here are the issues people said they cared most about. At a national level, it’s the economy: 65% of respondents called that most important, and another 23% somewhat important. Global security was seen as a top priority by 57%, with abortion and health care both at 47%. Immigration, the environment and public safety were viewed with less urgency.
For state and local offices, property taxes — no real surprise — was the top issue, identified as most important by 65% of our survey universe. The economy, education and land use, also were seen as very important; Public safety, health care and the environment, less so. (Some noted that we should have included affordable housing and guns as choices, and they’re right.)
Which is why I was heartened by The Monitor’s forum on Oct. 10,which brought together candidates for state Senate District 38 and House District 75. We and members of a very robust and engaged audience asked questions about issues, and the candidates answered thoughtfully — with little to no negative sparring to be heard. (You can find the audio at boulder-monitor.com. It also will be re-broadcast on ElkhornMountainsRadio.com.)
It seemed these citizen-politicians — Becky Beard and Jeffrey Benson, running for State Senate; and Marta Bertoglio and Nancy Jane Lien, for the House — really do care about the questions that affect Montanans. They have worked to build their understanding of economic growth and job creation; rural access to mental health services; the tensions between land development and open space; and abortion, among others. And they’re not afraid to tell us what they think.
I’m grateful for that investment, and for the generative discussion it produced. (For that matter, I appreciate that these folks are campaigning in the first place. As Benson cheekily observed during the forum, running for office is a “monumental task” — notably in the redistricted SD-38, which is enormous— and the reward to the winner is a part-time gig that will pay $16.11 an hour.)
And I’m left to wonder: What would it take to replicate this issues-focused conversation at national scale? How might we abandon political advertising anchored in superficial, malicious half-truths and restore public discourse that advances democratic function?
I think the voters are with me.
Contact Hammonds at keith@boulder-monitor.com.
