Why does the Los Angeles mayoral race suck so unfathomably hard?
Why are we stuck with two trust-challenged candidates who can do nothing better in the way of projecting their vision for the city's future than assault each other's character?
Political consultant Greg Dewar answers that question with a good, long think on the subject and concludes that it's all our fault ...
In this case, I don't point fingers at the any one of Usual Suspects of Big Media, Big Biz, Big Labor, Big Politicians or Those Dumb Voters. You can read those analyses elsewhere.
Instead I'd argue something else - the reason the candidates and campaign aren't living up to some people's expectations has more to do with the political culture of Southern California and Los Angeles in particular, than anything else. More to the point, the political scene reflects where the voting public actually is than whatever some self-appointed prophet says it is, or thinks it should be.
Take a look at our leading candidates, the ones that got the most votes from a very small pool of voters. One is a longtime politician who has run for years on Daddy's Name and Record, and has done very little as the incumbent Mayor other than work on that re-election fundraising.
An ethically challenged politico, you'd think he would have been rejected by most politicians and voters - but he wasn't. When confronted with his record, a surprising number of Actual Voters simply responded by saying "We knew that already. All politicians suck" and voted for him anyway. Even with a message of "I'm my daddy's kid" and "the other guys suck" - two very thin reasons to vote for anyone - he was able to pull through (but not in first place!)
Our other candidate, the top vote getter, is someone who ran and almost one once already. He projects a nice guy image, looks good on TV, and in general says the things a core group of voters like to hear. But again, this is no revolutionary campaign, nor should we expect any bold changes to the fabric of LA politics should he get elected.
In a city whose political culture is one of disengagement and acceptance of how things are, is it any surprise these two made it so far?
His piece is way long for a blog entry, though it's a provocative read.
But I'll disagree with Greg's central thesis. It's not Los Angeles, it's voters in general.
We believe the horse race coverage. We believe that whoever's getting the best positive press and spending the biggest bucks on the most heart-tuggingly, head-smackingly stirring ad campaigns must be the best person for the job. We ignore Public Enemy at our peril and believe the hype.
And we get what we asked for because we weren't really paying attention to character and performance - two career politicians who are better gamers and strategists than planners and leaders.
We get a lackluster, pandering do-little hack incumbent and a disloyal, ladder-clutching political climber who may see this as just another offramp on the expressway to Congress.
We get the lowest-common denominator chosen by those few of us who bother to get out and vote.
We get what we deserve, and on May 17, we'll get a whole lot more of it. Or is that just a tad too cynical?
Posted by: mack_reed on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 08:56 AM
