An outsider, really?

For a non-politician, Rick Snyder is doing a masterful job of manipulating the electoral system and reading the polls. His recent move to agree to one debate after shutting down negotiations with the Bernero campaign, should raise a red flag on the current favorite to be Michigan’s next Governor. Snyder has a vague ten point plan, but has yet to do anything to show real courage. The “tough nerd” has yet to behave in a way that is “tough.” He avoided debates during the primary, and to my knowledge, has yet to speak before an audience that contain his critics. How can we trust his ability to work with the legislature and “reform government” if he cannot outdebate Lansing’s mayor or speak to a critical audience.

Make no mistake, I don’t write here to proclaim Virg Bernero as the next savior of Michigan. Yet, I do give him credit for taking action. He saw a roadblock to debates and was aggressive in his work to engage Snyder. He has shown himself willing to speak before any crowd, at any time. His personality has shown toughness, something he deserves credit for.

In the early 1960s, John Kennedy and Barry Goldwater (two men with strong differences of opinion) agreed to campaign for the Presidency together, speaking before crowds to articulate their differences. This proposal for real education of the public about who to vote for is sadly missing in a place that needs leadership, Michigan. I hear the arguments made against debates, that they are no more than glorified campaign commercials. If that’s what Snyder is trying to avoid, why not make a proposal to change the rules and create a real debate? That would be a stronger statement of leadership that avoidance.

Refusing, or avoiding debates is the weakest move a politician can make. Don’t look now, but the “outsider” shows a real knowledge of how to work the system.

The Tea Party, ensuring the survival of the President's majority in the Senate?

Sharron Angle, Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul. Three candidates for the United States Senate (from Nevada, California and Kentucky respectively) that won their primaries in large part due to support from those activists closely associated with the Tea Parties. In Michigan, a Republican Candidate for governor trailing in the polls (Mike Bouchard) has started to recruit this constituency to boost his chances at being the nominee from his party next November. What's clear in Republican Primaries based on these results is the Tea Party has a foothold among voters. Anti-incumbent views, as well as a message of fiscal restraint seem to resonate with so many who are voting in primary elections. However, how will some of the following messages fare in the general election?

- Candidate Paul has indicated the Civil Rights Act was a mistake and an example of government intrusion into business, something he opposes.

- Candidate Fiorina opposes cap and trade policies, a reasonable position to take, but goes a step further by saying those who are concerned about climate change are "worried about the weather."

- Candidate Angle has advocated no regulation for oil companies, elimination of social security, and for the criminalization of alcohol consumption.

While these positions (rather right of center in my opinion) have resonated with a group of Republican primary voters, I wonder how they will be viewed in the general election. While some on the news are predicting "another 1994" marked with significant losses for the Democrats in the legislature, I'm not so sure. Make no mistake, I do believe Republicans will win seats next November, and think it's a strong chance they may control the House of Representatives. However, I don't know that some of the far right positions being advocated will bring about the significant election results some are prognosticating. The Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin may lessen the blow to the President and Democrats, particularly in the Senate. Are independent voters in California or Nevada likely to support positions that are anti-environment? Will Rand Paul really gain support with independents in Kentucky? There views, in my opinion, will not help them succeed in November - when the real elections happen.

This very situation played out in the United Kingdom over the past decade. In opposition to Tony Blair and the Labour government, the Conservatives became more and more extreme in their rhetoric. The result? Labour leadership in Parliament until this year, when a moderate conservative had to form a coalition government and the transition finally occurred.

A new year

The calendar has turned to 2010, meaning it has officially become "election year" in Michigan. 365 days from now, we'll be preparing to inaugurate a new Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and countless Representatives and Senators. The politicians have begun, I received 4 e-mails from candidates asking for money today, on top of the requests that came earlier this month. Each e-mail, letter, or phone call has talked about big ideas, bold strategies, and identified many of the problems our state faces. Some talk of business acumen, while others point out a track record of working with other people. One candidate refers to his ability to listen to the citizens, and like the others, promises to "work for me" to make Michigan better.

Absent from any of these mailings is the answer to the question most forefront in my mind, "what have you already done?" So many people running that are asking for support are veterans of government (for my thoughts on this, see my earlier post) and are only looking for new seats to hold. To these men and women, I ask what their track record is. What reforms have they proposed? What bold ideas have they already taken up? Chances are, from the state of affairs in Michigan, there has not been much. Democrats have too often conformed to the ideals of lobbyists, while Republicans in the minority have been a party of opposition rather than alternative. One side proposes an idea, the other side opposes that idea, and nothing has gotten done. Anyone currently in government has failed their constituents, and those who are now running for another term in another office should be held accountable.

- Proposal A has not worked, yet no one seems to have a plan to fund schools.

- Term limits have not worked, they've only caused professional politicians to corrupt the system.

- Diversification of our economy has been dreadfully slow.

- Unions and special interests, who should have their power limited, control what officials will do and stop reforms.

- The bureaucracy of the state continues to protect the bureaucracy, limiting changes.

- Hard truths need to be told, yet no one from a leadership position wants to do so.

We need candidates that will be honest with us, speak to voters like adults, make hard choices, and stand by them, even if it costs an election. It will take courage to do what needs to be done, and some of this work will not make a person popular. Our situation right now is bigger than politics, if only someone realized it.