Can we ask better questions to select and help candidates running for office?
The American political culture is designed and intended to ask ordinary every day citizens to take on the task and responsibility of doing extraordinary things. That is a remarkable idea when one gives it deep thought. In the most ideal circumstance, they are us and we are them. I am concerned that most of us have lost sight of this important fact, and I count myself among those with this lapse of memory.
It has become an active sport and source of entertainment to find reasons to attack and debase these same ordinary citizens after we have elected them to do important work the rest of us cannot and will not do. The cable noise networks make mountains of profits engaging in this activity, and too many of us indulge in what they offer. It proves to be an effective way to start our days in a sour state of mind. I need to stop that. Will you join me? If it were informative in a beneficial way, that might make a difference, but it isn’t.
What if we were to embrace these ordinary brothers and sisters that we empower to represent us instead of demeaning them? What if we asked, “How can I help?”, instead of “How can we tear them down?” What can ordinary citizens like you and I do to change the energy forces we deploy to something positive instead of the reverse?
I would suggest that we learn to ask them better questions when they are offering themselves as candidates. The questions should be thoughtful in a way that provides guidance and insight for them to reveal what they believe matters to us. They should not be “gotcha” questions intended to cleverly harpoon them. They are doing the best they know how to offer themselves to us, in a vulnerable way, in order to gain our support and trust. Finding ways to beat them up and put them on defense at every turn is not a good way to initiate such an important relationship.
The topics and concerns discussed in this essay are politically agnostic. They are applicable to any political party. In fact, the process of running for office and getting elected may be the only truly bipartisan aspect of the American political apparatus because regardless of party affiliation, the mechanics of getting elected are the same.
Voters should learn to ask better, more indicative questions of those who want our support. Here are some examples.
Is there a state or national need that is so important to you that you would value progress for it higher than getting reelected? A current congressperson is quoted as saying, “I know what I need to do, but I don’t know how to get reelected after I do it”. Marco Rubio is on record saying he wants to support immigration legislation, but he knows he will lose the next election if he does. It is counterproductive of voters to put our chosen leaders in such a moral quandary. What can and should we do to be supportive instead of punitive on difficult issues?
How often do you plan to communicate with your constituency from your office? The constituency should expect to get brief weekly updates on legislative activity, at the very least. And these updates should go deeper than renaming post offices. This communication ideally would include easy to use contact information so the communication flows both directions. Even more important, the candidate needs to be told that it is expected he or she will reach out far beyond their major financial backers.
Party or constituency? Of course, constituency includes all residents in the district or state the elected official represents, not just the party she or he is aligned with. There are always policies under consideration for new or updated laws that impact the greater good for the long term. Some of them are very divisive and unpopular with at least one party in the short term. After election, will the candidate favor what is good for the people over what is preferred by the party he or she belongs to?
Is elected office a long-range career ladder? Does the candidate have aspirations for higher offices than the one currently being pursued? Can the candidate talk openly about their personal goals and aspirations in the realm of public service? Does the candidate care more about climbing the political ladder than serving the people and being an effective legislator in the office they are currently running for? What we need now more than ever are office holders who are dedicated to solving social and economic problems in the state and communities they represent. If that is the case, the candidate will not have a lot of time to spend on fund raising for the next election.
Will you set limits on the amount of time you will devote to fundraising? Speaking of fundraising, Al Franken, in his book “Giant of the Senate”, outlines in detail the political party fundraising machine in its current state. His description makes watching sausage being made look attractive by comparison. We should be aware of the amount of effort a candidate asking for our vote is willing to commit to this process. Some say the time spent by most office holders on this task is nearly 50%.
Do you own a pet? We do not care what kind of pet the candidate has. What we want to learn is if the candidate is an animal lover. That is a reasonable measure of the character and compassionate nature of that candidate.
What are some ways you celebrate and enjoy nature? We should be very wary of any candidate who does not consider the environment to be a matter of vital concern. Instead of asking the candidate if they believe climate change is an important issue, it might be more revealing to ask them to talk about how they relate to nature in their life in a general sense.
Do you agree that questions of this nature would be much more helpful in guiding your voting decision? Do you think that a candidate who experiences this kind of dialogue with voters might become more thoughtful and deliberate about how they engage with their constituents?
If you are like me, you no longer have confidence in placing the focus on issues as a means of identifying good representatives in government. We all have our biases for every issue on the table, and candidates know this. And most of us do not want to be a single-issue voter. Look how long the timeworn abortion issue has malingered, and still there is no national legislation to reverse Roe vs Wade. Regardless of what is touted on the campaign stump, many politicians privately concede that the unintended consequences of such social engineering are too often more harmful than the intended benefits. In the meantime, there are social issues and concerns that impact us every day that make a difference in the quality of our lives and communities.
Our elected officials know what these social challenges are. They have been able to avoid acting on them. That is a sad state of affairs that we can improve if we start asking more insightful and revealing questions. Voters have as much responsibility in the democratic process as do candidates. And their responsibility reaches much beyond simply marking ballots on election day.
