Randy Seaver — journalist and former PR pro — blogs about politics, media and his struggles with mental illness.
Author: Randy Seaver
Randy Seaver is a veteran journalist who has been covering news and politics in the city of Biddeford, Maine for nearly three decades. He may be contacted at randy@randyseaver.com
Voter turnout for Maine’s 2014 Primary Elections on June 10 will be absolutely dismal.
Taxpayers across Maine will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for an absolute non-event; an utter waste of time and resources, all in the name of a Democratic process that doesn’t work without a contest.
In fact, we will be lucky to see voter participation that exceeds the June 1996 state primary, when only 12 percent of eligible voters bothered to cast a ballot.
Think of it this way, it will be like buying a ticket to watch the Boston Red Sox play the Boston Red Sox at Fenway Park.
The winners have already been determined.
Unlike the June 2010 Primary four years ago, the gubernatorial candidates for each political party have already been chosen. If only one Democrat goes to the polls somewhere in Maine, Mike Michaud will clinch his party’s nomination in a landslide.
But in 2010, voters of both parties had lots of choices. There were four candidates seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination, and no fewer than seven candidates seeking the Republican Party’s nomination.
More recently, in 2012, six Republicans and four Democrats fought in the primaries for a chance to fill the shoes of U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe.
This year, Republican Susan Collins has already won her party’s nomination and Shenna Bellows is assured of being the Democratic Party’s sacrificial cow.
But what about the Maine Legislature and the crop of fresh faces ready to head off to Augusta?
Okay, you can stop laughing now.
In fact, you may want to cry because you and all of your neighbors will be funding an entire day of using municipal clerks and voting officials to collect ballots that hardly matter.
Of Maine’s 35 state senate seats, only four will face a primary challenge (three Democratic primaries and one Republican primary)
It’s not much different for the process to fill the 151 chairs in the Maine House of Representatives, where only 19 of the 151 races will see a Primary challenge (8 Democratic primaries and 11 Republican primaries)
In 132 of 151 House Districts in Maine, it doesn’t matter a bit if you go to the polls on June 10. The races for the Blaine House, the U.S. Senate and the Legislature have been pre-determined.
Please do not disturb the slumber of your municipal clerks or voting officials.
It’s that time of year again, and I still want to ignore it. I still want to wish it away, block it from my reality.
But this will be the fifth consecutive year of having family and friends gather for a walk in nearby Kennebunkport.
Maybe that’s not such a bad thing. After all, what would we be doing on Saturday if Laura didn’t have this fucking disease, this disease I try to ignore?
So instead of yard work, shopping excursions or puttering around the homestead, a group of us will drive –caravan style — to the Consolidated School and register for the annual MS Walk.
On that day, I am surrounded by people with MS, and it is impossible for me to deny that the disease is also eating away at Laura, my wife . . .my best friend, my advocate.
Laura has her own system of denial. She is not as good as me, but she does a pretty good job of keeping the disease hidden from public view.
You almost can’t tell… unless you watch a climb a set of stairs.
Right here, right now
According to the National MS Society, more than 2.1 million people have been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
We are luckier than most of these people. We have good health insurance, and Laura still has most of her mobility. She is not in a wheelchair.
Not yet.
And that’s the part that gets me: knowing that it’s just going to get worse; knowing that every day I lose just a little bit more of the person I love most in the world.
We generally don’t talk about MS or the way it impacts our boys, our marriage . . . our lives.
But each year — even if it’s for just one day — we tackle this disease head on by participating in the annual MS walk, an event that raises funding for continued research and the ongoing search for improved treatments or maybe a cure for MS.
Laura was diagnosed with MS a little more than five years ago, and each year we have been blessed by watching Team Seaver grow in number and spirit. It is encouraging to see other families living with MS; to witness their courage and determination.
But it is also haunting to see so many other people dealing with MS in their own families, especially when their loved one’s illness has progressed so much more. It’s sort of like seeing your own life 10, 20 or 30 years into the future.
I cannot afford to worry about the future, nor mourn the past. Thus, I have to focus on what can be done today . . . right here, right now.
So, at the risk of annoying friends, acquaintances and colleagues, I offer this link to the Team Seaver page. Here, you can make a small donation to help fund ongoing research and support for people with MS.
No gift is too small, and all are very much appreciated. Thank you.
Despite all the hoopla about the power of social media tools in political campaigns, what metrics can we use to determine if those tools are effective?
While just about anyone can set up a Twitter account or create a Facebook page, social media tools are only as effective as those who are using them. Although it is widely accepted that social media tools played a big part in President Obama’s 2008 campaign, that type of success is not guaranteed by simply using social media as part of a campaign strategy.
When it comes to Maine’s 2014 gubernatorial race, which of the campaigns is best using social media? More importantly, how do we set aside our individual biases and evaluate the campaigns based solely upon their social media metrics?
At the Brookings Institute’s Center for Technology Innovation, Darrell West offers a mixed review regarding social media and campaign engagement and the awkward transition to actual governance.
Social media are the ultimate in disruptive technology. They change information delivery, business organization, online content, news coverage, and the manner in which individuals process new developments. As shown during the 2008 campaign, these digital tools represented a textbook example of voter mobilization and electoral impact. They were, in the words of Engage Partner Mindy Finn, the “central nervous system” of campaign organizations.
Using social networking outreach tools such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and Twitter, a number of Democratic and Republican candidates raised money, identified supporters, built electoral coalitions, and brought people in closer touch with the electoral process.
You may recall a somewhat silly and lighthearted piece about Maine’s gubernatorial campaigns that I posted a couple of months ago. Then, I jokingly said we should dispense with the standard election process and use social media metrics to determine the winner. I examined each of the campaign’s current metrics.
Today, I have decided to track those metrics on a regular basis and to blog frequently about those campaigns and their use of social media.
Over the last 60 days, each of the Maine gubernatorial campaigns has been active on various social media platforms. But before we begin, it’s important to note that Democrat Mike Michaud is the latest entrant to this race. Both Governor LePage and Eliot Cutler carried over their respective social media support from the 2010 campaign.
Nonetheless, Michaud has seen the greatest increase in social media traffic, earning a 21 percent increase in the number of Twitter followers @Michaud2014, moving from 1,219 Twitter followers on January 20 to 1,475 followers as of March 20, 2014.
Although Governor LePage (@lepage2014) has the greatest number of Twitter followers (1,698) his metrics have increased only 8 percent during the same time period.
Eliot Cutler (@EliotCutler) saw a 10 percent increase in Twitter followers, from 1, 153 to 1,269 followers during the same period.
On Facebook, Cutler still dominates in the total number of Likes for his campaign page (19,824) but saw only a 4 percent increase over the last 60 days, while both Michaud and LePage experienced increases of 10 percent.
LePage’s Facebook page had 18,438 fans on March 20, compared to 16,791 fans on January 20, 2014.
Michaud’s Facebook page had 11,600 fans on March 20, compared to 10,529 fans on January 20, 2014.
When viewed overall, it would appear that Team Cutler has the steepest hill to climb, so far.
Note:Though it’s generally common knowledge, it must be noted that Twitter followers and Facebook fans do not translate directly to the number of supporters for a political candidate. As an example, I follow all three campaigns on Twitter, but will only be voting for one candidate.
While most people were picking out green outfits, drinking lots of beer or otherwise wasting time on St. Patrick’s Day, one select group of folks were bracing for potential fame and fortune as hopeful members of the 2015 Maine Legislature.
The deadline for wannabe state representatives and state senators came and went at 5 p.m. on March 17.
Given the impacts of last year’s legislative redistricting and Maine’s term limits law, voters will be faced with a healthy crop of fresh faces.
But you can always count on a few perennial candidates: those who think the next campaign will be the magic campaign, the Wonka Golden ticket that will admit them into the strata of being really important and somewhat relevant. Such is the case in Biddeford, where Perry Aberle — undaunted by two consecutive and somewhat epic campaign failures — has once again tossed his hat into the ring seeking to capture a legislative seat that eluded him two years ago by a hefty margin.
Now that he has tossed his hat into the ring again, hopefully, someone will toss him back a working razor.
Aberle won his last election nearly two decades ago, when he was still in high school and was elected to serve one term on the Biddeford City Council. Since then, his campaign skills have deteriorated.
He ran for the state legislature two years ago and was crushed by incumbent Paulette Beaudoin, the proverbial little old lady who cleaned Aberele’s clock by garnering nearly 64 percent of the vote (2,585-1,471).
A year later, Aberle brushed himself off and decided to challenge Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant. Despite a much larger pool of voters in a city-wide election for mayor, Aberle’s vote total shrunk by more than half, and he finished a distant third in a three-way race that also included former mayor Joanne Twomey. Casavant easily won re-election with 2,377 votes, compared to 720 for Aberle.
Today, Aberle is again running as a Republican for the Maine House of Representatives in District 12, which includes the central and downtown portions of the city. He will face Biddeford businessman Martin Grohman, a Democrat, in the general election.
Will the the third try be the charm for Aberle? Don’t bank on it, would be my advice.
Over in District 11, which includes western portions of the city, Democrats Ryan Fecteau and David Flood will duke it out for their party’s nomination. The winner of that contest will face political newcomer Debi Davis, a Republican, in the November general election.
In the District 32 State Senate race, Democrat David Dutremble will once again bank on his family’s political legacy and last name recogntion to hold onto his seat for another term. Dutremble will once again be challenged by Arundel businessman James Booth who ran for the seat two years ago as an Independent. This time, Booth is running as a Republican. Anything is possible, but Booth is facing an uphill battle in a district that historically favors Democrats.
I don’t know what metric you use to measure your life, but I learned something valuable last night as the hours counted down toward my 50th birthday.
Despite all the material benchmarks and the conventional wisdom about what a man should accomplish in the first 50 years of his life, there is no better metric to determine success than to experience the love and companionship of friends and family.
Apparently, when you celebrate the silver anniversary of your life, you are rewarded with bundles of gold.
Given my self-destructive tendencies, the Vegas line on my getting to 50 has always been a bit dicey. But the payoff when I got there was beyond compare.
How incredibly blessed am I?
As the clock refused to slow, I was surrounded by the most incredible (and diverse) group of people. If I ever doubted my success, I no longer have the luxury of doubt.
We are reckless in our use of the lovely word, friend, said Romain Rollard; and I agree.
How do you measure success in your career? when former and current colleagues are willing to drive more than 100 miles just to sip beers and eat pizza in celebration of your birthday. When former and current professional competitors walk into that same room with smiles and a warm embrace.
How do you measure your success as a husband and a father? When your teenage sons voluntarily give up a Saturday night just to hang with you and other “old people.” When your wife spends weeks coordinating and planning a party to celebrate your birthday, baking cupcakes into the late hours of a work night.
How do you measure success among your peers? When you can count friends you have known since the Carter Administration, and newer friends who would gladly answer the phone at 4 a.m. if you really needed them.
That so many people wanted to be there, and so many others — limited by geography and the other constraints — sent warm greetings, affection and regret.
As I fell asleep, it occurred to me that I have exceeded my own expectations; that I am wealthier than I could possibly imagine; that I am fortunate beyond belief.
As a species we celebrate our common benchmarks (weddings, funerals, anniversaries and birthdays) because it is the stuff that makes the day-to-day drudgery worthwhile. We are all in this together, and it’s always so much better with companionship and the gift of friends.
This morning, I stumbled across a new Facebook page that is dedicated to the idea of reclaiming the color blue for Republicans.
At first blush, I thought this was one of the silliest things. But then, I started thinking about it.
Why would the GOP want the color blue versus red? Isn’t red the traditional color for Republicans? Not unless you consider “traditional” as the last 15 years.
According to the Republicans Red No More Facebook page, “center-right parties around the world are Blue, and Social Democrat parties are Red, except in the U.S. where 13 years ago the media assigned Red to the Republicans. “
The page creators argue that for more than a century, Republicans were routinely associated with Blue and Democrats with Red.
That color association was changed, they say, by NBC journalist Tim Russert in 2000 when he assigned Red to Republicans on his electoral map.
Since then, they say, the media has adopted this formula, even though it runs counter to American history and worldwide practice.
Are they right? Well, take a look at the map that NBC used to portray the 1980 presidential election results between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.
Color is a form of non verbal communication. It is not a static energy and its meaning can change from one day to the next with any individual.
For example, a person may choose to wear the red one day and this may indicate they are ready to take action, or they may be passionate about what they are going to be doing that day, or again it may mean that they are feeling angry that day, on either a conscious or subconscious level.
Experts say the color red can cause people to feel rushed, agitated or angry. The color blue, on the other hand is generally associated with serenity. It is also associated with trust, honesty and loyalty.
So, given this information it becomes easy to see why Republicans want to “take back” the color blue.
And what about the rest of the world? Are Social Democratic political parties generally red and center-right parties blue?
That would be true in a wide range of countries, including Finland, Israel and the Czech Republic. In fact, the more you look, the more you will see that conservative or centrist parties are associated with the color blue around the globe.
But I don’t expect the U.S. Democratic Party to go down without a fight in the upcoming color war. After all, the last thing Democrats want is to be associated with the color red (Think Soviet Union, the Red Invasion and all sorts of other negative stereotypes.
Who changed the color? Was it a mainstream media with a liberal bias? Was it an oversight or an intentional switch by the GOP? There’s a lot of conflicting information out there, but one thing is for sure: you can always find some strange stuff on Facebook, which relies on the color blue.
You probably heard that CVS, one of the nation’s largest drugstore chains, made news by announcing it will no longer sell cigarettes.
While a majority of pundits and health advocates were quick to heap praise upon the retail giant for its “bold and principled” move, some lingering questions remain about the decision and its fallout.
Depending on your perspective, one of the following things precipitated Wednesday’s announcement:
A: the CVS board of directors decided that their good conscience should prevail: selling tobacco products is in direct conflict with their company’s core value of promoting healthy lifestyles, and they made a “principled” decision; or
B: the CVS board of directors violated several regulations of the Securities Exchange Commission by willingly turning away an estimated $2 billion in annual revenue generated from the sale of cigarettes at its stores, and was thereby willing to accept a loss in profits for its shareholders because of principles; or
C: the CVS board of directors knew exactly what they were doing, and this was little more than a calculated and strategic move that would 1.) attract new customers; 2.) provide a significant public relations and marketing boost to a company that is constantly battling with fierce competitors; and 3.) most importantly, open up new sources of revenue and cost discounts with the chain’s affiliated vendors and health partners, including health insurance companies.
Which of those scenarios do you think is most plausible?
If you chose A, you are what people in my profession call completely gullible. If you chose B, you should probably get back to promoting your own grassy-knoll theory.
The right answer, of course, is C.
Allow me to explain. There is no defense for smoking cigarettes. It’s a terrible and nasty habit. But CVS is relying upon a questionable talking point here, especially when considering all the other products that are stocked on its shelves.
The last I heard, the United States is dealing with an obesity epidemic that is costing taxpayers and insurance ratepayers billions and billions of dollars each year. Yet, CVS, the self-proclaimed bastion of good health and righteous moral principles, has yet to announce that it will no longer sell soda, potato chips or candy at any of its stores. Why?
Every once in a while, I enjoy a cold beer, a nice glass of wine or a soothing shot of bourbon. Alcohol, however, is a known toxic. Many people are unable to consume alcohol responsibly. Alcohol related deaths are skyrocketing. Alcohol abuse can be found at the root of many social problems, including crimes that range from inxtoxicated driving and domestic violence to robberies and assault. Loss in workplace productivity related to alcohol consumption is staggering. The impacts of alcohol on our nation’s health care system is extraordinary.
Will CVS sell wine or beer at any of its stores?
I am a free-market capitalist. I am tickled pink that CVS made its own decision. The government did not pressure the company. The market did. That’s the way it should work.
But for CVS to single out just one of several products its sells for profit earns them my Hypocrite of the Year Award.
And for health advocates to call this a “move of principle” is a joke because they conveniently (for now) ignore some much larger issues.
Today, it’s the smokers. And eventually, smoking will be eliminated. But then what?
Do you really think it will stop there? Do you really think that they won’t come after your food, your beverages, or any of your choices?
Attempting to create a physically fit, morally upright citizenry has been attempted before. Maybe some day, we will get it right.
Several months ago, I posted a blog entry that compared how people react to physical illnesses versus mental illnesses.
In that post, I detailed the overwhelming support I received after breaking my arm in two places. I also bragged about how I refused to let it slow me down. Using only one arm, over a holiday weekend, I was able to produce fact sheets and other collateral materials for a very large and important client during a deadline crunch.
I also shared some aspects of my much less obvious illness:
Imagine a disease that rarely allows you to sleep through an entire night. A disease that constantly impacts your perception of the world around you; a disease that clouds your judgment, alters your reality and makes it almost impossible to get out of bed.
Imagine an intense level of pain that without medication would have you think every hour of every day about ending your life; a disease that inhibits your ability to maintain relationships and function as a productive member of society. Imagine having a disease that is commonly ridiculed and often dismissed as nothing more than “feeling sorry for yourself.”
I live with the challenges of that disease every day. I fight it with every fiber of my existence, only to know that it will never go away; that there is no cure or remedy.
Today is one of those days when I pretend that it is all so manageable. Generally, I pretend by using social media to argue and rant about politics or current events, anything other than the reality surrounding me. Presenting a false illusion of confidence and optimism.
It would be more convenient — certainly less difficult — for my friends, family and coworkers, if I could be more consistent in masking this disease.
Many of them, in fact, would prefer that I not talk about this subject, but I make no apologies, and I am not asking for much.
I would ask only, that on days like today, you treat me the same as you would if you saw my arm in a cast.
When I broke my arm, only one person told me I was “just feeling sorry for myself.” Only one person expected me to type a 300-page report or maybe sling a hammer and just “get over it by doing something productive.” Only one person told me I was too self-absorbed and ungrateful for all the amazing gifts God has bestowed upon me.
That one person was me, and it is the voice I imagine that others whisper when I am not in the room.
Judge me if you want, but also know this . . . you will never judge me more harshly than that voice inside my head
So, why do I write this shit? What’s the point? I have no answer. But if you click this link, you will find a wide range of others who share some unique insights and perspectives about a disease that remains invisible and generally misunderstood.
This blog is on equal footing with the New York Times.
No, I am not having a Richard Sherman moment. I am simply stating a fact. A fact that should give all of us pause as we contemplate the marvels of technology
What I write on these pages is instantly available to billions of people, anyone connected to the world-wide web. By virtue of nothing more than my registered domain, my silly and perfunctory blog is just as accessible as any other online media source.
The internet, virtually free of government regulation (at least in the United States), is the great equalizer, and it has fundamentally shifted the way we live our lives. Today, we can do things that would have seemed impossible or the stuff of science fiction just 20 years ago.
Medical records can be transmitted at lightning speed, sometimes helping doctors save a life; you can now renew your driver’s license while wearing only boxer shorts at 3 a.m. from the comfort of your own home; 12-year-old boys no longer have to suffer the humiliation of sneaking a peek at a Playboy magazine perched on the top shelf at the local drug store. There are millions of funny cat videos to watch; and you can argue politics with absolute strangers (today they are called Facebook “friends” or “followers”) 24 hours a day.
I think we can all agree that the internet is pretty cool. Thank you, Al Gore!
I write this because of a recent court decision that is considered by some as a victory for free markets and by others as a threat to humanity.
The issue is known as “network neutrality,” a terrifying concept with a very appealing name. Thank you, public relations professionals! (You’re welcome)
Those who favor net neutrality say they want to “save the internet.” Those who oppose net neutrality say they want to “save the internet.”
Enter the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals, which sided with Verizon and other telecom giants over the schizophrenic rulemaking proposed by the FCC.
According to Reuters, the Court rejected federal rules that required Internet providers to treat all web traffic equally, a decision that could allow mobile carriers and other broadband providers to charge content providers for faster access to websites and services.
The Federal Communications Commission’s open Internet rules, also known as net neutrality, required Internet service providers to give consumers equal access to all lawful content without restrictions or tiered charges.
Which side of the net neutrality debate is right?
The sad fact is that both sides are a little bit right, and we can all agree that the internet should continue being cool and delivering porn or funny cat videos at blazing fast speeds, right?
Unfortunately, that’s not really the issue at hand. Let’s pause for a moment and watch a video:
Clash of the Titans
At the center of the net neutrality debate is a sad truth. This is not some humanistic battle on the wild frontier of technology. This is a race to the bank by two sets of very large corporations.
On one side, you have internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T. On the other side are huge internet users like Netflix, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and YouTube.
The late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) was roundly chastised for describing the internet as a “series of tubes,” but he was not that far off the mark.
The bottom line? It costs money to make the internet work. It requires infrastructure that is in constant need of upgrades and repairs to meet the challenges of an exploding market and skyrocketing volume demands. The world has a big appetite for cat videos and pornography.
Netflix, Amazon and others want to use the internet just like you and me. Equal access for all, they scream.
But does that make sense? Net neutrality opponents argue that the internet is a public domain and should thus have equal access for all users. Let’s think about that.
Can we apply that logic to other public domains? How about the post office? Should it cost as much to mail a post card as it does an air conditioner? Is that discrimination?
Or how about the Turnpike, a quasi-public piece of infrastructure subsidized by tax dollars? Tractor trailer trucks have to pay a bigger toll than someone driving a Prius. And that is fair because the truck creates more wear and tear on the road.
Proponents of net neutrality say that consumers may have to pay more for faster services or special tiered packages. Oh my!
Their rallying cry, as demonstrated by a recent op-ed in the New York Times by Susan Crawford is that the internet could end up being like (gasp) pay TV.
I don’t know about Susan Crawford, but television when I was growing up sucked. We had three channels, and I was my father’s remote control. Television today is much better. I have a huge TV and about a zillion channels that all show the same seven movies over and over. I pay through the teeth for that kick-ass, high-definition, Dolby surround-sound, 60-inch, power sucking thing of beauty, and I can pause live television. Imagine telling that to someone watching Archie Bunker in 1972.
Net neutrality is a solution desperately in search of a problem. Your internet today is better than it was five years ago. I guarantee it will be even better five years from now, . . . unless, the “Save the Internet” crowd opts for a second bite at the apple.
As Maine Goes (AMG), one of Maine’s most popular and controversial political websites, had gone dark after a 16-year run that allowed verified members to post and comment on a wide range of political issues. Admittedly, AMG was a conservative site, but it was well-moderated, and liberal posters would sometimes wade into those waters to offer their perspectives and to push-back on what they perceived to be an echo-chamber of conservative thought.
AMG’s membership, although decidedly right-leaning, was rather diverse: single mothers, retired folks, business owners, students, academics and every-day working people spent hour upon hour debating ideas, posting insights and frequently arguing about a wide range of subject matters.
Journalists would monitor the site, observing political trends and gleaning intelligence from campaign operatives who would lurk on AMG’s pages.
Profanity was forbidden, but the jousting was real. It was not a place for those easily offended. If you couldn’t take the heat, if you didn’t like being challenged, well…you could always just sit back and watch the big dogs get off the porch.
So it was, in the post-AMG abyss, that I decided to try my own social media experiment. Lacking the dedication and commitment that Scott Fish gave to AMG, I instead set up a Facebook group called “Thinking Politics”
It remains a closed, secret group (new members must be invited by existing members to participate). I started the group with fourteen people: six who generally lean left, six others who generally lean right and two people I perceived to be in the middle of the political road. (This was all very subjective and was calculated while drinking generous doses of a favorite Merlot).
The mission statement of the group is rather simple: Thinking Politics is a place for those who enjoy political discourse that includes rigorous debate but not personal attacks. Members are seeking an elevated level of political discourse and pledge to be as committed to hearing as they are to speaking.
I wanted to see how these selected friends would do in a controlled environment. I invited no one else, despite the urge not to offend other friends. I tried to just sit back and watch. That was almost five weeks ago.
Can you hear me?
Today, there are nearly 120 members in the Thinking Politics group. Members pick and start the conversation points or join other ongoing discussions.
At least one person dropped out of the group. She was reportedly frustrated that she could not see comments being made by another member because he had “blocked” her from his own Facebook profile.
The group quickly veered left. Why? Simply put, my left-leaning friends outflanked their counterparts on the right by inviting others of similar thought as reinforcements.
Obviously, this dynamic frustrated my friends on the right. They were feeling outnumbered, outmatched and felt it was a waste of time to participate if they were just going to be outshouted. They retreated a bit.
But here’s where it gets strange. Some of those on the left actually began bemoaning the fact that the page was becoming little more than a “political echo chamber,” chock full of progressive thought with little or no input from the political right.
Just when I thought my experiment had failed, something happened. The conservatives found some heavy-hitters to join their ranks, including State Rep. Jonathan McKane (R-Newcastle) and Beth O’Connor, a former state representative and vice chair of Maine Taxpayers United. Other unapologetic Republicans followed.
So now the page was a bit more balanced, but was it more productive?
It remains to be seen. A majority of the members seem genuinely committed to the process: to stand firmly on ground and debate with civility. But I wanted (hoped) to see something else. I wanted to see if people would begin asking questions. I wanted to see if there was a natural curiosity out there. Would people pause and consider alternative viewpoints? More importantly, would they proactively seek out those other views?
You can guess the answer.
I’m right, you’re wrong
Even in a semi-controlled environment, my friends seemed more focused on being right rather than considering an alternative viewpoint. I get it. That’s how I roll 99 percent of the time.
Last week, I participated in an event that some friends organize every once in a while: a Political Beer Summit. Now, face to face and with the assistance of great beer and delicious pizza, the political debate was just as passionate but it was a lot less heated.
Sitting across the table from one another, the Democrats saw the Republicans as reflections of themselves with the exception of different viewpoint. The Republicans were not afraid that the Democrats were going to stiff them with the check. It was fierce, but friendly. No one changed their mind, but every one was willing to listen.
Why can’t that dynamic happen more often? Why are we so fiercely competitive?
Recently, I stumbled across an article in the Washington Post that explains this increasingly fierce dynamic of political competition.
Nearly every recent election has held out the possibility of a shift in party control of one institution or another, writes Francis Lee in his Monkey Cage blog.
Lee continues: Competition fuels party conflict by raising the political stakes of every policy dispute. When control of national institutions hangs in the balance, no party wants to grant political legitimacy to its opposition by voting for the measures it champions. After all, how can a party wage an effective campaign after supporting or collaborating with its opposition on public policy?
Lee’s analysis of political competition helps explain the dynamics I witnessed in my experiment. Today’s political discourse has taken on the tenor and tone of an all-out war, a battlefield of fighting to the death and an unwillingness to compromise.
Last night I posed a question on my Facebook timeline: Is it possible to debate politics without animosity; is it possible to fight a war without hating your enemy?
Matt Jacobson, a Facebook friend who was one of several Maine people seeking the Republican nomination for governor in 2010, offered a brilliant response: “Too many don’t understand the difference between an opponent and an enemy,” he wrote.
I am fascinated by the psychology of politics, and I earn my living as a policy/political consultant. It still amazes me that so few candidates understand the vital importance of reaching toward the middle for additional supporters. If we want the fence sitters to join our side, how do we get them off the fence and into the game?
I think it’s a worthy question, and I invite your feedback. And if you want to join the Thinking Politics group just send an e-mail to randy@randyseaver.com
Allow me to make a bold prediction.
LESSONS IN MEDIOCRITY | OUTLAW JOURNALIST 