Any candidate should get some credit for trying an unconventional campaign. McGavick’s campaign theme was “civility,” but for being just one word, it was a complicated concept. Polls have always shown people are disgusted at Congress as an institution. But the convention wisdom is voters hold their own Congressman in higher regard. Had Senator Maria Cantwell been uncivil? For most people, no particular incident came to mind. McGavick cited Cantwell’s tense relationship with Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, but his argument assumed two things—first, that voters paid attention to the conflict over Puget Sound tanker traffic and Alaskan drilling and second, that Washingtonians would ding Cantwell for sparring with a Republican senator from Alaska. Sure, when McGavick made his “civility” pitch on the campaign trail, the context of his stump speech played well with audiences. But in the end, when we asked registered voters statewide if electing McGavick improve civility in Congress, roughly a third told SurveyUSA he’d improve it, while nearly just as many felt, he’d made it worse.
What impressed many people early on about McGavick, was his natural gift at speaking. Whether talking to the Rotary, the Safeco Board or investors, he exuded confidence. But in those environments, the former CEO was accustomed to talking about complex topics and his explanations often required the listener to make a concentrated effort to understand his point of view.
In Aberdeen, an audience member asked him about drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. McGavick responded that he favors drilling in ANWR because it’s the environmentally responsible choice. What other nation with oil resources, he asked the crowd, would you trust to drill in a more environmentally-friendly way? The audience members fell silent. They had to think for a moment. Meanwhile, McGavick was on to Social Security. He proposed a program to allow wealthy Americans to voluntarily give back their benefits followed by possible mandatory means testing, while giving younger workers individual accounts with limited investment choices. The crowd was still contemplating ANWR. Democrats characterized McGavick’s Social Security plan as “privatization,” and McGavick responded with a TV commercial explaining that the individual accounts would still be managed by the government.
Speaking of commercials, no where does a candidate need to simplify the message more, than in 30-second ad--the vast wasteland of easy-to-comprehend messages. One day only. Cars cost less in Puyallup. Honk for Vern Fonk. In one ad, McGavick tackled Social Security taxes, illegal immigration, Social Security benefits for immigrants and Congressional spending. His very last commercial on Iraq, compared himself not just to Senator Cantwell, but to Libertarian Bruce Guthrie and Green Party candidate Aaron Dixon—fascinating for insiders, but with kids jumping on the sofa and the laundry machine buzzing, did anyone at home capture the nuance of the third-party candidates? Meanwhile, a Cantwell commercial made it simple for voters, pegging McGavick as an insurance executive in a tuxedo who took a $28 million bonus after laying off 1700 workers.
It’s not that voters aren’t smart. Quite the contrary--the collective wisdom of voters is inspiring. But voters aren’t investors or board members or business people. They reserve a fixed amount of their time for politics and they place the burden squarely on candidates to get their attention and to make things clear. Maybe that’s the problem. The issues facing America aren’t simple and yet we expect candidates to have simple messages. Think about that. Or maybe, it’s just too complicated.
If Mike McGavick had just put his name on the ballot with an “R” next to it, it’s conceivable he might have gotten 35% of the vote. After a year of hard campaigning and $10 million dollars, he got just about 39% on election day. That’s a sobering result for Republicans, who no doubt will spend months agonizing over what went wrong.
You hit the nail on the proverbial head. As voters we want leaders who can see the complexities of issues on the one hand and also be able to put the solutions into 30 second sound bites. Ironically, McGavick did not understand that with the American public's attention span of 30 seconds you can't confuse us with deep thought.
Your criticism of him, while accurate, was really a criticism of Washington voters. We are too intellectually weak or so partisan that we choose not to think about ideas from someone that does not have the right label next to his or her name. In either case, we get what we want. Politicians screaming of problems and then offering simple solutions that have little chance of solving them. Hey, but at least we get the pork.