Essay: Campaign Pains - 10/17/06

My guess is that if I asked Tim Walberg what he had in common with Bill Clinton, he would look startled, then horrified, and be tempted to blurt out “nothing!”  But in fact, the two men are alike in one way.

They are great campaigners. They love to campaign. Neither ever seems too tired for one last rally. They kiss babies, eat charred ethnic food with apparent enthusiasm, and shake hands until their own paws are raw and sore.

I know two men with something else in common. Their names are Al Gore and Joe Schwarz. And they aren’t nearly as good at campaigning as the first two. Gore can do it, but most of the time, doesn’t appear to like it very much. Schwarz hates it.

Privately, he is the warmest and friendliest of men. Battle Creek has generations who know him simply as Doctor Joe – and adore him. But he doesn’t suffer fools gladly, or most of the time, at all.

You can analyze election returns till your eyes give out. But I think at the end of the day, it is no coincidence that Clinton and Walberg, the enthusiastic campaigners, won their most important elections, and Gore and Schwarz lost.

That is partly as it should be – and partly a tragedy. Politics has always been a fine balancing act between the skills needed to woo the voters, and the skills needed to govern. Our greatest leaders have both.

Those who are good only at campaigning leave no mark. Those whose skills are mostly in governing behind the scenes sooner or later get left by the side of the voting booth.

Over the years, I have had the chance to sit down with both Schwarz and Gore to discuss complex issues. Both are brilliant at analyzing problems and figuring out solutions.

In the state senate, Schwarz was a major force in putting together workable policy compromises. Yet his lack of campaign skills worked against him. He lost a race for congress he should have won in 1992, and did worse in a primary for governor ten years later.

In Washington, his maturity, intelligence, and intellectual sophistication made a remarkable impact for a freshman Congressman.

When Joe Schwarz lost in August, there was something akin to mourning in the Washington establishment. But on the campaign trail, he had been outhustled. That wouldn’t bother me so much if I thought it was really the will of the people. Yet I don’t think we know what most of them want. More than four out of every five voters sat on their hands. Meanwhile, more than $3 million was dropped on this primary race. More than a million of that came from The Club for Growth, a somewhat shadowy Manhattan-based group that wants to privatize Social Security.

One leading crusader for campaign finance reform was appalled, but said he had to believe the voters picked who they were most comfortable with. Maybe so.

But the vast majority of them didn’t bother to vote at all.

Hear Audio Story   

Comments

[Dan Smith]

I'm always skeptical of that often heard mantra, "He's just not great at speeches." or, "He doesn't like campaigning, he's more of a policy wonk". Well guess what, politics, has been and always will be about glad handing, smiling and kissing babies, if you’d don’t like that, go work for a congressman and you can be a policy guy. Those that survive who aren't good at it, are people like Congressman Thad McCotter, probably the least likeable character I've ever met. Still he runs in a solid Republican district where he can get away with being, well unlikable. If you are going to run statewide in Michigan or in Congressional districts where swing voters make decisions, they usually vote for the most charismatic, likeable character. Of course not always, John Engler is the exception to the rule, but most of the time, politics is merely a popularity contest.