I have vented several times about the political advertisements being run by candidates vying for their parties’ nominations in Indiana’s upcoming primaries. (Actually “parties’ nomination” is inaccurate: all of the ads I’ve seen have been for Republicans –Democrats have fewer primary battles and are presumably saving their dollars for the general election.)
It’s bad enough that the GOP combatants have engaged in out-and-out racism and claimed ridiculous “outsider” status; virtually all of the candidates for Governor have ignored the issues that a governor actually faces in favor of culture-war appeals. A governor has zero authority over America’s southern border, for example, but these Republicans clearly believe that an appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment (those people are brown!) coupled with wild accusations that immigration is the source of illicit drugs (it isn’t), will win the cold hearts of their primary voters.
The ads are offensive to anyone who has the slightest understanding of the difference between federal and state jurisdiction. I can only assume they are evidence of one of two things: either the candidates themselves are ignorant of basic legal and constitutional boundaries, or–more probably–they believe their likely voters are uneducated and unaware of how government works.
Obviously, I’m not the only one who has come to that conclusion. Nikki Kelly, of the Capital Chronicle has addressed the issue.
Up until now, the GOP gubernatorial candidates have mostly fallen back on national talking points. But that does a disservice to Hoosier voters who want their next governor to be focused on Indiana issues.
And despite what many of their ads say, that’s not China or the southern border or even online safety — which are largely federal issues.
Kelly has a surprising ally in her quest for a discussion of legitimately local issues: Indiana’s incumbent Republican Governor, Eric Holcomb. Holcomb has thus far withheld an endorsement of any of the candidates.
It appears that even Gov. Eric Holcomb is getting impatient. Though he has declined to endorse any candidates, he recently had some interesting comments about the race.
“My thought process is: there are a lot of folks who approach me that are undecided because they’re uninformed about where (the candidates) stand on issues that a governor has to address on a day in day out basis.
“We can repeat words. And (in) most of those words I see broad agreement within the candidates,” he said. “But there are items that come across the governor’s desk and what the Legislature grapples with that aren’t being discussed that I think should be more in detail.”
The Governor mentioned several of the issues where voters deserve to know the candidate’s positions: economic development strategies, infrastructure financing, the state’s mental health challenges, the extension of broadband, and a sustainable Medicaid program. Those are, after all, issues with which the next administration will have to contend.
Kelly adds to that list. How will the next governor approach taxation–especially given the GOP’s fixation on reducing the “tax burden”? If taxes are cut, where will the state get the funds to maintain–let alone repair and/or expand–infrastructure and essential services?
What about support for Indiana’s death penalty? The state can no longer get the drugs used in executions. “Do candidates support eliminating the death penalty and saving money on court battles? Or, would they move to other execution methods? And how does their position square with their anti-abortion rhetoric?”
Where do these culture warriors stand on education? As Kelly notes, Republicans have controlled Hoosier education for over 20 years, yet we have seen no improvement. Test scores and graduation rates have stagnated while the state continues to rob public schools of critically-needed resources in order to fund vouchers for private–overwhelmingly religious–schools.
And what about abortion, and the numerous other issues involved in health care? As Kelly says,
When a candidate can answer these questions with depth and specifics they will earn my vote. And I don’t necessarily have to agree with them philosophically on every matter — they just have to be willing to speak beyond slogans and political dog whistles.
Well, these candidates are certainly going beyond dog whistles, but not in a direction either Kelly or I would endorse.
Nothing I’ve seen in these ugly political spots gives me any confidence that any of them are interested in tackling the real work of governing. I used to mentally divide political candidates into two groups: those who want to do something–improve governance–and those who want to be someone. Someone important.
I’d put all the candidates running these deplorable ads in the latter category.
Comments