Pin It
I was mad after the election this week, partly at the electorate and partly at myself. The former, because it appeared to me that voters split along party lines, rather than voting for the best candidates. It's not that I was unhappy with the result of the election, it's just that my take was that it was a party thing, rather that a "who's the best candidate" thing.

Party politics has become rabid in recent years. It is most noticeable in State and Federal politics, where the news media is more apt to talk about party strategies than substantive issues or individual candidates' actual beliefs and qualifications. The modern press seems to think that voters are more interested in the machinations of small-minded people who care only about getting more power for their party and nothing, apparently, about what's actually good for the country.

This has polarized the country. When you attend a gathering of liberals you are bound to hear what evil greedy idiots the Republicans are, and if you attend a party of conservatives the conversation turns to those tax-and-spend no-idea negative Democrats. Politicians have been turned into caricatures, and it has become OK to deride and to claim they have no ideas of their own, no skills or integrity.

While that is certainly true of some politicians, there are many who actually do want to make life better for their constituents, and I think that is more apparent at the local level. I interviewed Town and County candidates and I didn't meet a single one who didn't want to make Lansing life better. I felt some were stronger candidates than others on the merits, and others were stronger on campaigning ability. Yet analyzing the election returns, it appears to me that residents voted the party line. Was this because voters didn't know enough about the candidates? Was it party loyalty? Or am I wrong?

I was mad at myself, because it occurred to me that having spoken to each candidate personally, perhaps I should have published my opinion. That could have mattered, because I asked each candidate the same questions and looked them in the eye as they answered. My feeling is that I should simply report the news and not interject my politics into it. I tried to let the candidates speak for themselves. But in doing so the nuances of a live conversation were lost, because this is a print medium.

Some of the candidates really knew what they were talking about. They had taken the time to research the issues and had some pretty specific ideas about how to address them. Others spoke in generalities and knew less that I did, and I certainly don't consider myself an expert.

Should the Star endorse candidates? I am not really sure. At this point I prefer to err on the side of letting the news and the candidates speak for themselves. As I said, I am pleased with the results, but I worry about the process and my role in it as a journalist. The more we all know about the people who run for elected office the better we can do as voters, unless we just vote the party line.

----
v1i17


Pin It