The latest story in the Maine gubernatorial race involves a prompt ending to a press conference by Paul LePage, the Republican candidate for the office, after a question about his property tax history in Maine. I’ll let you decide whether he ran away or just stormed off in an unprofessional fit, but the fact remains that there is now another entry (well, two, actually) in Paul LePage’s colorful history with the press.
The issue of LePage’s tax history – like that of Cutler’s residency – may not turn out to affect the election in any meaningful way. Even so, they’re still reasonable questions to raise. Is Paul LePage sick of the question? Obviously. But that doesn’t mean that the questions will stop. One of the responsibilities of an elected official (or his representatives) is to control the message and answer relevant questions when they arise.
The obvious spin on this story would be that the press ambushed LePage with a question he deemed unimportant. Granted, the Maine media isn’t exactly perfect, as we’ve seen this weekend and as we’ve seen previously. They do have a tendency to focus on issues of lesser importance, and they sometimes linger on those issues.
So why is this bump on the campaign trail important at all? It’s all about the message it sends about a possible LePage governorship. Will he shy away from questions or refuse to answer those that aren’t to his liking while in office? How can we trust a state leader who doesn’t respond to questions that he doesn’t feel are appropriate? A governor has to address the criticism of the state and use that feedback in a productive way to best govern the state’s interests. If he denies any discourse with the press or with his constituents, his governorship won’t be a valid representation of the people. That’s not how to lead a state government.
Seems to me like we always focus on the minutiae of political races. Who’s taken money from whom? What associations might we not see with the candidates?
In reality a big part of winning a political contest is the drive of a candidate and his or her followers. To win a race, either you or your supporters (and ideally both) have to want it more than the other guys. Part of that equation is the desire to lead and inspire. Another part is a passion to change something about government — or to maintain the status quo. Together, in the right combination, the parts lead to a winning campaign.
A lot of the key players in Maine just aren’t showing this kind of fire so far in the campaign. Mitchell doesn’t seem to be making much headway in the area, and Cutler, while showing some promise, seems more caught up in a race for second place than he does about winning the whole election. The state’s Democrats, for the most part, pretty much have everything they want right now: a liberal governor, massive new programs at the state and national levels, and a pretty solid lock on federal leadership (for now).
Right now (in Maine, at least) the drive is firmly in the corner of Republican voters. They’re tired of how things have been done in the state, and they want their leadership to change. LePage, the leader of their movement, doesn’t seem as passionate as some of the voters he represents, but he’s well aware of those who want to see a different kind of government. For them, he’ll do.
Conservatives hold the fire right now, but it hasn’t always been that way. Obama’s win in 2008 was largely due to the backlash from voters who wanted to move as far away from Bush’s policies as possible. In that race, Obama had the added advantage of being more charismatic and telegenic than his seasoned opponent.
The humor of this year’s Maine gubernatorial race is that LePage may be elected because of the same idea that worked for Obama two years ago. While the substance between the two is much different, the message is the same: the voters with the most passion and desire want change, and they want it now.
I’ve been struggling to find a real direction for what I want to do for a while now. Seems like there’s a lot of guidance and suggestions around the web for finding your passion or your aim, but that’s not exactly the issue I’m having; rather, I simply have too many things I want to do all at once.
I’ve found that my quest to find a good direction (or two) revolves around big questions about the world and how changes in our lives will affect us in the future. Lately I’ve realized that I want to know what big questions other people have, too; maybe we can find some way to approach them together.
Here are a few of the questions that rattle around in my mind quite a bit.
- How can we learn to recognize bias and motives while at the same time encouraging research and reducing mistruths in news and other communication?
- How do we balance an increasingly documented and data-centric world with our need and rights to privacy?
- How can we encourage people to understand others’ points of view, even if they don’t agree with them?
- How does our changing view of friendship as a result of social networking and other tools affect interpersonal skills and our relationships in physical space?
- What’s the best way to approach law and government in a way that does not infringe on anyone’s religious beliefs or rights?
- How can we make waste reduction (including packaging reduction, recycling, etc.) a priority for normal people?
- What’s the best way to balance our energy needs with the risks associated with more productive forms of power generation?
Of course, you’ll probably notice a few common threads in those questions; those threads are my passions. Your questions will probably have some shared central ideas, too.
I’d love to hear what you think are the big questions that should be discussed and debated. If you feel comfortable sharing them publicly, leave a comment or send me a note on Twitter. If you’d rather share privately, shoot me an email. Hopefully we can build a discussion from there.
