Candidate Litmus Test (LaVarr Web @ Blogger Briefing)
LaVarr Webb (UtahPolicy.com) came and spoke at the blogger briefing on Wednesday morning and gave his thoughts on the legislative session and upcoming election cycle. He highlighted some of the major themes of the session like health care, Sen. Buttars, and immigration. But one of his comments stuck out to me where he talked about Republicans avoiding any “message” bills.
Translation: Republicans had their eye on reelection and so wanted to keep the waters calm and make sure they passed things that would keep the folks at home happy or give them a better chance to be reelected. I guess this begs the question, is it more important to vote principle or get reelected? Why should the fact that your reelection bid may be put in jeopardy by tackling a tough issue make any difference?
So here is my new candidate litmus test (for those seeking reelection). Did you a) tackle a tough issue (this most likely means unpopular) in an election year because it was the right and principled thing to do or b) did you play it safe? If the answer is b then you are just another politician and I’ll take my vote elsewhere. If the answer is a) you’ve got my vote even if the issue is one I disagree with. We don’t need more elected officials who live by the axiom of reelection or bust. We need more elected officials who stand on principle no matter the consequence.
Someday…
Jeremy said,
March 14, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
So are you saying we should support the candidates who focus on message bills rather than the legitimate functions of government? Aren’t those legislators who focus their efforts on ensuring proper funding for education or tax reduction also principled?
Which types of message bills pass your “candidate litmus test”?
Lyall said,
March 14, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
Jeremy,
A quick question back is who says a message bill has to be one that is not one focused on legitimate functions of government. I’m not saying they shouldn’t also focus on nuts and bolts items, those are essential and proper. But when legislators choose to avoid dealing with difficult (maybe should have used that word to clarify ‘message’ bills) issues (an example would be our US congress avoiding social security reform or immigration reform) because they got reelectionitis then I think we are rewarding behavior that is borderline cowardly and self-serving.
As to your last question, I would say ethics reform may be top of the list, others include education reform–I don’t mean just vouchers here, although I believe vouchers is one part of the puzzle. Why are we not looking at how technology can be effectively used in the classroom or why aren’t we expanding the charter school program where there is a bit more freedom to experiment with new and innovative teaching models and ciriculums? Health care reform is another one that keeps getting put off?
I guess I should add to the post that the litmus test is not the only consideration, but the answer to it gives me some meaningful insight into the character and leadership of any particular candidate as well as helping see if the title is more important than making meaningful reform.
Hope that helps.
Barbara said,
March 14, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
The issue for me is do our legislators just represent the political operatives and campaign contributions (who work to get them elected) or do they truly represent the voters. Too often, political expediency requires pandering to the first at the expense of the second.
David said,
March 15, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
I’ll admit that your use of the term message bill threw me off at first. I do agree that we can gain some valuable insights by looking at whether our elected officials act the same when they are not facing an election as when they are.