Wisconsin Recall: Glimpse of the Darkside or Wake-up Call?


After the Tuesday Wisconsin recall many a political pundit assessed the results of this Midwestern state’s impact on the presidential elections. Is Wisconsin a representative microcosm of American politics from which national contests can be accurately gauged? Or did the entire effort speak more to significant political divides within the US and the ease in which we are swayed by rhetoric and the money spent perpetuating it?  

Can we gauge the direction of the national election for president on the results of the recall effort against Scott Walker? Can we honestly conclude that, as goes Wisconsin, so goes the nation? Probably not. The recall election was, despite all the national attention, a local contest, decided by Wisconsin state residents concerned about what was best for them. Wisconsin, like California and Massachusetts, has a history of electing Republican governors yet send Democrats to the White House. Judging from the exit polls, voters may well follow that trend once again. In the end, localized  statewide contests serve only as potential predictors for how those states may lean during general elections not as indicators of national trends.

More importantly, though, Wisconsin did illustrate two unfortunate trends in the political landscape in this country. The first is the ever-expanding chasm of political divisiveness which has widened significantly over the past decade. As such political partisanship has increased, so has distrust and distaste for the others’ policies.  Yet, anger over policy direction, however, is not a qualifying reason to recall an elected official. A Twitter message from that night presented a thought-provoking result from the exit polling;

Bingo RT @chucktodd Most important result from the exit poll: the 60% who said recalls are ONLY appropriate for OFFICIAL misconduct.

— Thomas C. Bowen (@thomascbowen) June 6, 2012

Is this the road we want to start down? Do we truly want to tie up the process of governing with threats to remove leaders from office if enough people who disagree with their policies sign a petition? Did Scott Walker, in his effort to eliminate collective bargaining, do anything illegal? Was their misconduct involved in passing the Wisconsin budget repair bill? As yet, nothing has come to light. Was it necessary for Governor Walker to continue with the ban on collective bargaining rights even after unions agreed to his budget cutting terms to increase employee benefits contributions? No.  A compromise had been reached but the governor insisted on an apparent my-way-or-the-highway ultimatum. Does an inexorable nature qualify as a reason for removal from office? Unfortunately not. If it were, the vast majority of the House of Representatives would be facing their own recall elections. Perhaps for the Walker opposition a focus on the issue, not the man would have produced a more desirable outcome.  Instead of ousting Ohio governor, John Kasich, opponents to a similar collective bargaining ban asked voters to decide. They overturned the legislationwith 61% of the vote.

While Wisconsin may not be representative of the US in miniature, it most certainly was a trial run for the big money campaign spending machine set loose by the Citizens United ruling. It gave the country a view of what will transpire in the national campaigns to come. For many it showed money can buy elections. Scott Walker pulled in $32 million outspending his challenger 7 to 1. Much of the money came from outside the state, accounting for about 59% of Walker’s war chest, three quarters of which were donation of $10,000 or more. As many are aware the donors list featured the who’s who of the conservative millionaire-billionaire crowd, with the Koch Brothers, Rick Santorum’s benefactor Foster Friess and Bob Perry of 2004′s Swiftboating fame at the top. This prompts questions about this small group’s influence on the electorate as a whole. To whom will the winning candidates feel beholden to? Those select few who funded their campaigns or the voters who elected them? In addition, it wouldn’t be out of line to question whether all this money spent on political campaigns by these millionaires and billionaires, these job creators, could not be better spent on more substantive pursuits.

Some sources say the money spent had little impact as many voters made their decisions long ago. These findings may well be valid. After elongated campaigns voters may simply tune out the barrage of ads. But what cannot be ignored is the drumbeat of rhetoric that hammers questionable claims into voters’ heads until they essentially become fact. We’ve bore witness to it many times before. Not just in Wisconsin, teachers’ unions have been successfully demonized as wasters of taxpayers’ money when in reality teachers are one of the most underpaid professions in the country. On the national stage health care reform was characterized as “government takeover of healthcare” when it was largely an insurance industry, regulation reform bill with no government takeover or ownership of any kind. Republicans have successfully convinced many voters the economy is worse now under Obama than before he took office despite over 2 years of private sector growth, an increase of GDP from 0.4% to 3.0% in 2011 and overall hiring of 4.2 million people under Obama’s time in office.

Did the contest in Wisconsin truly provide us a glimpse at the dark underbelly of campaign spending we will most likely watch spread throughout the country over the next 5 months?  Quite possibly. Did it clearly show the consequences of the hyper-partisanship we ourselves as voters have fostered? Perhaps. If anything, it demonstrated the need to research those we entrust our vote to. It should motivate many to delve deeper into the claims displayed on the ads flashed across our television screens, the all too repeatable talking points and the heated commentary from a myriad of sources. Unfortunately, the onus of truth is placed onto the voters’ shoulders these days but in the end one must weigh the the choice between making an informed vote versus the one handed to you.

 

_________________________________________

Follow on Facebook and Twitter

About these ads

10 Comments to “Wisconsin Recall: Glimpse of the Darkside or Wake-up Call?”

  1. It is sad, and sickens me somewhat, to have to admit that unfortunately you are spot on when it comes to talking about campaign funding. Money talks and money buys a lot of negative advertising.

    You are right, a Gubernatorial recall vote and campaign hardly is a predictor of how the Presidential election may turn out but it does set an alarm bell ringing ever so loudly. Not a warning of a failure but a warning that there is going to be the dirtiest, nastiest campaign with the negative advertising coming less from the Romney campaign funds but from the SuperPAC’s following him that require him as President and require a majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives to push through their own agenda’s.

    The very sad thing is that while there are a lot of people that will happily vote Republican because they are upset with the economy or are easily swayed by the negative advertising, you know the type…

    …the same ones that purchase everything that they see in infomercials because they believe they will cure all their ails because the guy on the advert says it will.

    Then of course there are the pseudo-Democrat or pseudo-Independent. They like to say they are Democrat or Independent because it makes them feel a little better about themselves but they will either flip flop like a grounded fish on the river bank or choose the one that they think the majority will be voting for!

    I think though that Romney gives far more people, than we all realize, that uncomfortable feeling like they ate a bad shrimp and your body is going to do one of two things and neither are that pleasant when it does happen! I have spoken to a quite a few ‘Republican’ voters lately and they say that all the ‘big money’ backers Romney is utilizing scares them, that it shows his true loyalty will be to these big money people and their agenda’s.

    • Chilly> “Money talks and money buys a lot of negative advertising.”

      Yeah, unfortunately it really does. We’ve seen so much distortion of the facts and it boggles the mind how we’ve accepted, as voters, that it is okay to have leaders who have skewed reality just to get enough people to vote for them. In many instances we have send representatives out based on a large amount of misinformation.

      While it may not down and dirty between those directly related to the candidates, you’re right it most certainly will through the SuperPACS. This may well be the last election we see those as people will become so utterly incensed by wat came out of the PACs that a vast majority od the states will pass their own campaign finance laws. Congress will cave under the pressure.

      ” I have spoken to a quite a few ‘Republican’ voters lately and they say that all the ‘big money’ backers Romney is utilizing scares them,”

      Are they considering voting Obama or just not voting?

  2. Reblogged this on okieprogressive.

  3. Consequences.
    The short term was that Democrats said the ‘sky would fall’ if Walker and the Republicans cut the budget and bargaining rights.
    The late employment numbers were actually good.
    Long term, if public employees lose collective bargaining, it’s a short step for legislation to bar private sector collective bargaining.

  4. ‘The National Conference of State Legislatures is tracking an explosion of 744 bills that largely target public-sector unions, introduced in virtually every state’.
    “Almost every week, I read of at least one more bill to restrict union rights at the state level,” said John Logan, director of the labor studies program at San Francisco State University’.
    ‘Nearly half of the states are considering legislation to limit public employees’ collective bargaining rights’.
    From : http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/02/nation/la-na-unions-20110402
    The article was written April 2nd. It goes on to list Ohio, New Hampshire, Maine, Florida, Kansas, Tennessee. I’ll throw in Idaho.
    The info they wrote regarding Washington State was wrong and they made the correction.

  5. I think Wisconsin voters in general are reasonable, and current polls show they want a balanced approach to dealing with the economy and debt. I personally think the debt is an irrelvant boogeyman that can be fixed in a few years through the right investments. However, regardless of my simple view, at least I saw a few Wisconsin polls that show the same folks that voted to keep Walker, also favor by huge margins rolling back the Bush income tax cuts and raising capital gains taxes on the wealthy in order to invest in the middle-class. Hopefully, the Democrats will exploit that view effectively, given Romney/Ryan’s policies.

    • TP Slayer> It’s hard to understand WI residents’ more moderate views when they decide to keep in office someone who puts out fairly far-right policies.

      “debt is an irrelvant boogeyman ”

      I agree but I think we’ll cure a lot of the problems with that once the bulk of the people who lost their jobs during the recession go back to work and increase those tax revenues lost. Of course, the GW tax cuts need to go as well but perhaps incrementally.

      Yes, hopefully, the Democrats can capitalize on those more pragmatic side of the WI votering populous when it comes ot budget policies.

      We’ll just have to wait and see.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 298 other followers

%d bloggers like this: