We deserve better

by | Oct 2, 2014 | 2014 Elections, Features, NC Politics, US Senate | 18 comments

The United States Senate race pitting Kay Hagan against Thom Tillis is the most expensive campaign in the history of North Carolina, yet it’s cheapening our politics during a critical time for our state.

The $30 million already spent on advertisements, by the candidates and supporting super PACs, already eclipses the $26 million in the legendary Jim Hunt versus Jesse Helms contest in 1984.

While Hunt versus Helms divided households and defined North Carolina politics for decades to come, you won’t see many Tillis bumper stickers or Hagan yard signs this year. The experts may call this a base election, but there is noticeable lack of enthusiasm for either candidate from even the most committed party activists.

That North Carolina is the new battleground state does not mean our politics become the shining example of American democracy; it means we’re the new Florida. With control of the U.S. Senate at stake, each side spends millions making moderate candidates into monsters, turning Thom Tillis into a teacher hating plutocrat, and Kay Hagan into a communist.

The problem is that in an era when the debates are too short, and too scripted, and rallies during county fairs are unheard of anymore, the television advertisements are the campaign, except for a few GOTV efforts at the end.

Nearly 50,000 ad spots have run so far, from groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Senate Majority PAC, and not a single advertisement addressed real challenges facing the state, from molding a service economy into meaningful work, to tailoring education to fit the jobs of the 21st century.   

National issues like immigration, ISIS, and rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure are ignored, as are serious problems at home, like a 16.9 percent unemployment rate in Scotland County, the scourge of meth labs in Wilkes, or the one in three residents of Robeson County who live in poverty.

The entire contest between Senator Kay Hagan and state House Speaker Thom Tillis is confined to what Washington reporters and Beltway consultants think will score points in the polls or hits on YouTube. Hagan is tied to a VA scandal she had nothing to do with, and Tills is bludgeoned for the supposedly racist “traditional population” comment, taken out of the context of him calling for Republicans to do a better job appealing to minorities. 

The election will come down to whether Republicans are angrier at Obama or Democrats at the legislature in Raleigh, with the winner being the candidate voters dislike the least.

Now maybe that’s just how politics works in the age of social media, cable news and Citizens United. But we’re about to elect (or reelect) a person to represent millions of people in Washington for a full six years, after a campaign where neither candidate gave a decent speech, wrote a thoughtful op-ed, or seriously proposed a single new policy. 

The most important issue of the decade is jobs, right?

Kay Hagan’s platform on the economy is three paragraphs long, and Tillis’s jobs plan is 71 words, and neither comes close to specifics.

The sad part is they get away with it. These aren’t kids running for high school class president, these are elected leaders of one of hardest hit states in America, who can’t be bothered to come up with even a page detailing what to do about it.

Maybe this was a bad cycle, when neither party fielded their best candidate, and nobody got excited; or maybe the ads from Michael Bloomberg and the Koch Brothers turned everyone off.

And it’s true that North Carolina has a history of depressing senate contests from the notorious “white hands” ad run against Harvey Gantt to the racist tactics used in the 1950 Democratic primary against Frank Porter Graham. But with so much at stake across the country today, North Carolina voters deserve better. Maybe the saving grace of 2014 is that this was the year we finally realized it.

18 Comments

  1. Clark E

    For ALL the people on here who complain about “politicians” in general and refer to “them” : How many of you have “run” for office and put yourselves “out there” to show how it SHOULD be done????? It is much easier to “criticize ” others than to participate !
    EVERYONE has a responsibility to participate . Democracy IS NOT a spectator sport !!!

  2. Jimmy Rouse

    The only excitement in the race are the disgruntled Tea Partiers who are upset their man Brannon lost and did not even make it to a runoff. They are wailing and gnashing their teeth that Brannon did so poorly and blaming Tillis. Like Tillis had anything to do with Brannon’s poor performance. I think Brannon pretty much eliminated himself without Tillis’ help. But their whining has made the race interesting. The Tea Party can prove their relevance if they are able to reelect Kay Hagan. It will be a crowning moment in Tea Party history.

    • RedHotPoker

      huh? I think you’re imagining things…is the TEA ‘party’ on the ballot? not in NC…duh.

  3. Jimmy Rouse

    We are getting what we deserve.

    The politicos on both sides are interested in their candidate winning but outside that narrow group there is not much interest in the race. Both candidates are plain brown wrapper types who have not fired up either party base.

    I think Kay believes in Obama and that Tillis believes in not believing in Obama. Whatever that means.

    I think Kay will win and keep her seat for as long as she wants it.

  4. Mick

    We deserve better? I don’t think we do.

    “We,” as a statewide and national electorate, essentially created this overly expensive, essentially thoughtless, caring-only-about-style-points approach to campaigning, and, by extension, to electing US Senators. We did it, over time, by who we elected to federal office.

    Citizens United, a ruling advanced by 5 SCOTUS judges appointed by 2 Republican presidents, allowed zillions to be funneled to state and even local campaigns.

    Meanwhile, the rise of the Tea Party, pushed along by frustration at congressional gridlock, the gullible swallowing of claptrap dispensed on a daily basis by conservative talk radio and FOX News, and a pinch of racism still oozing from the cracks in the Union, created not only a US House supermajority and a MPD (Major Party Divided, i.e., the GOP), but also a razor-thin Dem majority in the US Senate. That thin majority margin compelled the national party establishments to want to control the more competitive US Senate campaigns, resulting in dumbed-down campaign publicity on both sides, all of a sort that intentionally skews and misrepresents the truth, and will never offer up notions of innovative change or program.

    Yes, we, as voters, put ourselves in this position of having to listen to and watch , uninspiring, unexciting, and untruthful campaign drivel.

  5. Pete Kaliner

    If only the Founders had thought to make US Senators appointed by state legislatures.

    Oh… wait…

    • larry

      US Senators appointed by the state legislature? Really? You would put in the hands of the clowns in the current legislature the power to appoint a US Senator? Seriously? Sorry but I will suck it up and put up with AFP, NRA, Carolina Floating or Rising, assorted Teachers Unions, the PAC of the day smear the opposition for months as we have this year than empower fools on Jones Street the power of appointment. I have a mute button…I can switch the channel…and if rich dudes and groups want to piss away there money…hit the mute button!!!

      • Troy

        It used to be that way Larry right up until 1913. And of course, Pete knows this. And of course, problems became inherent in the various governing bodies of the States so that seats sat empty and there was a growing dischord in Washington that eventually culminated in that little thing known as the War between the States.

        But you’re right. There is nothing to be gained certainly by the various State governing bodies elected Senators. We can be shallow here, why do we need to send that show on the road for a tour?

        • Thomas Ricks

          Politicians are turds. Politicians electing politicians are distilled turd.

          Only a libertarian would think it is a good idea to have refined turds in the Senate again.

          If you must have your turds serve the interest of their state allow direct at will revokable appointment by a governor only so that they MUST represent the interests of the turd that has to run the state instead of the turtle that people in KY are to stupid to depose.

          • Troy

            Given the ‘quality’ of the appointments thus made by our illustrious Governor to date, imagine if you will an Art Pope or perhaps Aldona Wos as a United States Senator.

            Yeah, made the hair stand up on the back of my neck too.

        • Pete Kaliner

          Troy, you wrote:
          “It used to be that way Larry right up until 1913. And of course, Pete knows this. And of course, problems became inherent in the various governing bodies of the States so that seats sat empty and there was a growing dischord in Washington that eventually culminated in that little thing known as the War between the States.”

          Are you suggesting the Civil War began because state legislatures sent the Senators to DC? I thought it had more to do with economics and slavery.

          ====================
          You wrote:
          “But you’re right. There is nothing to be gained certainly by the various State governing bodies elected Senators. We can be shallow here, why do we need to send that show on the road for a tour?”

          As I mentioned in another reply:

          “Do you think citizens would pay more attention to their state legislative elections?”

          More importantly:
          “Do you think US Senators appointed by legislatures would allow the federal government to issue unfunded mandates on states?”

          Direct election of US Senators robs the states of their representation. Sorry, I’m big fan of federalism.

          • Troy

            I’ll address your questions one at a time here, if I may.

            1Q: “Are you suggesting the Civil War began because state legislatures sent the Senators to DC? I thought it had more to do with economics and slavery.”

            1A: No, I’m not suggesting it. I’m saying that the problems with Senators being appointed by the various State legislatures were starting as far as back as 1850. Political divisions in State legislatures prevented states from putting Senators in seats, thus, either enabling or preventing legislation from being passed that may have prevented what eventually became the Civil War. However, with the conclusion of this little tiff, the problems with legislatures appointing Senators became worse. Thus the amendment to Article 1, Section 3 as to who would elect the members of the Senate.

            2Q: “Do you think citizens would pay more attention to their state legislative elections?”

            2A: Not at all. It would simply mean that ‘they’, the electorate, would have one less thing to worry about. They send people like Thom Tillis, Phil Berger, and Pat McCrory to Raleigh. Do you really think they’d pay more attention to whom these people send to Washington? They can’t do what is in their and the States’ best interest now. Voter apathy has been profound for some time. Do you think that they are going to sit up and take notice over two more people the legislature picks, regardless of the position.

            3Q: “More importantly: Do you think US Senators appointed by legislatures would allow the federal government to issue unfunded mandates on states?”

            3A: No less than they do now. What makes you trust and believe that a State Legislature is all powerful and knowing? Is that your only hang-up, unfunded mandates? The State does them all the time to local government. Get a grip.

            And your statement:

            “Direct election of US Senators robs the states of their representation. Sorry, I’m big fan of federalism.”

            I’m going to first suppose that you’re saying you’re not (sic) a big fan of Federalism. Ok. One of the beauties of this nation is that we can believe and fan as we choose. As for that first sentence in your statement, please elucidate.

        • Pete Kaliner

          Troy,
          I apologize if this response is lost in this thread. It won’t let me directly reply to your post.

          You wrote:
          “I’m saying that the problems with Senators being appointed by the various State legislatures were starting as far as back as 1850. Political divisions in State legislatures prevented states from putting Senators in seats, thus, either enabling or preventing legislation from being passed that may have prevented what eventually became the Civil War. However, with the conclusion of this little tiff, the problems with legislatures appointing Senators became worse. Thus the amendment to Article 1, Section 3 as to who would elect the members of the Senate.”

          I disagree that seating of US Senators would’ve prevented the Civil War. The issues were too great. Indeed, the Founders knew the slavery issue would need to be addressed at some point. I find it speculative, at best, that this had any measurable impact. Indeed, it was very rare for legislative bodies to not seat Senators. It did occur, on occasion. But it was not widespread or influential.

          The intent of having states appoint the Senators is to represent the interests of the state government inside the federal government.

          ==================================

          You wrote:

          “Not at all. It would simply mean that ‘they’, the electorate, would have one less thing to worry about. They send people like Thom Tillis, Phil Berger, and Pat McCrory to Raleigh. Do you really think they’d pay more attention to whom these people send to Washington? They can’t do what is in their and the States’ best interest now. Voter apathy has been profound for some time. Do you think that they are going to sit up and take notice over two more people the legislature picks, regardless of the position.”

          I disagree. People are motivated to vote for all sorts of people for all sorts of offices for all sorts of reasons. For example – some Republicans are not enthusiastic to vote for Tillis, but they will do so because they see his election as important for GOP control of the Senate.
          I believe the government that is closest to the people is most responsive and governs best. It is easier to get a meeting with a local NC Rep or Senator than it is to go to Washington and meet Burr or Hagan.
          Perhaps I have a higher opinion of voters.

          =====================================

          Regarding unfunded mandates, you wrote:

          “No less than they do now. What makes you trust and believe that a State Legislature is all powerful and knowing? Is that your only hang-up, unfunded mandates? The State does them all the time to local government. Get a grip.”

          I’d ask you to argue my actual points, rather than making up some others. I did not say state legislatures are “all powerful and knowing.” That’s pretty silly.
          Maybe you WISH I had said that. But I did not.
          And speaking of silly… unfunded mandates is not my “only hang-up.” I have mentioned a couple of the impacts that direct election of US Senators has. It’s not really a “hang-up.”
          And, yes, I also object to unfunded mandates from the State to local governments, as well. It appears you support them. I don’t like politicians taking credit for programs, services, or initiatives that they force some other entity to fund. That’s just me. I think this is a pretty consistent and reality-based “grip.”

          ==========================================

          You wrote:

          And your statement:

          “Direct election of US Senators robs the states of their representation. Sorry, I’m big fan of federalism.”

          I’m going to first suppose that you’re saying you’re not (sic) a big fan of Federalism. Ok. One of the beauties of this nation is that we can believe and fan as we choose. As for that first sentence in your statement, please elucidate.

          Oh! You got me! Haw haw haw!
          That should’ve read: “I’m a big fan of federalism.”
          Although… I must say…
          Given the first sentence (which is a defense of the federalist model adopted by the Founders), it should have been obvious. I don’t know how you would assume I am NOT a fan of federalism — when every comment I’ve made has been in defense of it.

          James Madison said: “The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.”

          See? Federalism.
          I’m a fan.

          • Troy

            That may indeed have been the intent, but what was the result in actuality? Apparently the reality fell well short of the “intent” which resulted in the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

            They certainly do vote for myriad reasons; or not at all. But they certainly don’t vote on the basis of appointments made by those elected officials, real or imagined. Perhaps you do have a higher opinion; it certainly isn’t a more qualified one.

            Who left you in charge to make points? I did not say you said anything. The implication in your question is that the state legislature, more than the people, should be allowed to choose the members of the Senate to the Federal government.

            “Unfunded mandates” was the specific reference you made pointed reference to in your question. Can you not stay on track with your discourse? And I wasn’t aware that I need search elsewhere for your points.

            Where did I say that I supported “unfunded mandates”? I happen not to, but I realize that is a reality from the upper levels of government to the lower. The layer of government from which it flows down is immaterial. And once again, you are certainly free to think as you choose.

            The people should be allowed to choose all of its representatives. Whether they choose wisely or poorly, well, I guess that depends on ones’ views.

            As far as what Federalism is, I could explain it to you, I can’t understand it for you. The only thing that is robbed is the ability of the State legislatures to leverage the US Senate.

            Yes, I certainly do see.

      • Pete Kaliner

        Do you think citizens would pay more attention to their state legislative elections?

        Do you think US Senators appointed by legislatures would allow the federal government to issue unfunded mandates on states?

        But yeah… AAARRRRGGGHHHH! I hate politicians!! RRR!!!

  6. David E. Turner

    We deserve better; but when we have a primary turnout of 8% like we did here in Gaston County earlier this year…maybe we are getting what we deserve right now? Voter apathy creates a vacuum that is filled by everything we hate about politics. The solution is simple, yet seemingly impossible.

  7. Kevin Brock

    Not to quibble, but ads didn’t turn Thom Tillis into a teacher-hating plutocrat. He earned that label in his four years as Speaker.

    • Jennifer Baugher Recktenwald

      Just as the ads didn’t make Hagan Obama’s lapdog. She spends so much time sucking up with Washington that she forgot those she is supposed to represent. Both she and Tillis are terrible.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!