By Timothy Loftus, Editor & Publisher | Sergeant Bluff Advocate
(SBA) - Every two years, campaign season arrives, and our mailboxes begin filling with oversized postcards. Most travel from the mailbox to the kitchen counter to the recycling bin without anyone reading past the candidate’s name. Meanwhile, our phones buzz with texts from people we’ve never met who somehow know our first names and need a donation by midnight.
Turn on the television or scroll through social media, and you’ll hear another urgent warning: The opposing candidate is dangerous, dishonest, incompetent or possibly responsible for every problem since the invention of indoor plumbing.
OMG…STOP!!!
I like hearing candidates make their case. Tell me what you believe, what you hope to accomplish and how you plan to do it. That seems like a reasonable request from someone who may be hiring you for public office.
Instead, too many campaigns devote their energy to making the other person sound like a threat to civilization. A vote or statement gets trimmed down to a few words, placed over an unflattering black-and-white photograph and paired with music that sounds like a shark is about to swim into the room. By the end of the ad, we’re meant to believe that if this person wins, we’ll all be living in a van down by the river.
As editor of the Advocate, I see more of this material than I care to admit. News releases, campaign announcements, fundraising appeals, attack statements and event invitations land in my inbox. I interview candidates, read their answers to questions and pay attention to what they say. I also see how quickly a statement can take on a different meaning once an opponent’s campaign gets hold of it.
My responsibility is to give readers accurate information and candidates a fair opportunity to explain where they stand on issues that matter to Sergeant Bluff and the surrounding communities. Fair coverage does not mean treating every claim as equally credible or pretending the truth always falls exactly in the middle. It means asking useful questions, checking the facts and reporting the answers honestly.
Outside the newsroom, I’m a voter, too. When I enter the voting booth, I won’t be choosing the candidate with the scariest commercial or the cleverest insult. I want to know who has thought seriously about the job.
What would you do about rising property taxes? How would you address the cost of health insurance, housing, fuel and groceries? What can the office you’re seeking actually do to strengthen our schools, support public safety and help communities like ours prosper?
I’d also like to know whether you understand the pressures facing small businesses, farmers, working families, senior citizens and young people trying to get started. Can you work with someone who disagrees with you? Can you make a practical compromise when the situation calls for one? Those answers tell me far more than a dramatic voice-over ever will.
Candidates absolutely should challenge their opponents’ records. If someone voted for a proposal, voters deserve to know what it would do. If a candidate has been dishonest or irresponsible, say so and show the evidence. That is accountability.
There is a difference, though, between “My opponent voted for this proposal, and here’s why I disagree” and “My opponent voted for this proposal because he hates families, freedom and apple pie.” One examines a public decision. The other claims to know what’s inside someone’s head, which is a remarkable talent to possess during election season.
Neither major party has a monopoly on this behavior. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. Outside groups do it, sometimes while candidates stand a convenient distance from the mud being thrown on their behalf.
I understand why negative campaigning persists. Fear gets attention. Anger motivates people. A frightening message fits neatly into a 30-second ad or a text with far too many exclamation points. But winning an election by convincing people the other candidate is awful leaves a fair question unanswered: What, exactly, do you intend to do once you’re in office?
Give us something we can evaluate. If you say property taxes are too high, explain what you would change and how that might affect local services. If you promise to help lower health care costs, tell us how. If you support public education, explain how you would help schools recruit teachers, maintain buildings and serve students. If public safety is a priority, talk about the people and resources needed to make it work.
Candidates don’t need a perfect answer to every problem. I’d be more inclined to trust one who admits that an issue is complicated than one who promises to fix it all by Tuesday. Taxes pay for services people use. Programs cost money. Good ideas can have drawbacks. Most voters are capable of understanding that if candidates give us the chance.
They could start by spending more time listening. Visit our schools and small businesses. Talk with city officials, teachers, police officers, firefighters, farmers, parents and senior citizens. Ask what concerns them, then explain how the office you seek could realistically help. Come back after the campaign, too. We’ll still be here.
Voters have a part in this. We can check a claim before sharing it, read beyond a headline and ask a candidate what they support instead of only whom they oppose. We can also give our attention to candidates who offer thoughtful answers, even when those answers won’t fit on a postcard.
I don’t expect one mayor, supervisor, legislator, governor or member of Congress to solve every problem. I do expect honesty, preparation, sound judgment and a willingness to work. I’d like to hear candidates explain their priorities clearly enough that, after the election, we can see how they’re doing.
So make your case. Tell us what you believe and what you hope to accomplish. Explain why you are the best person for the job. Trust us to weigh the facts and decide.
And, please, give our mailboxes, cellphones and nerves a little break. We’ve heard quite enough ominous music for one election.
