Should Political Campaigns Take an All-Star Break?

By Richard A. Lee

Major League Baseball took its annual mid-season break for the All-Star Game this week, but there was no break in the action in New Jersey’s 2009 campaign for governor.

Two days after throwing out the first pitch at the All-Star Game in St. Louis, President Barack Obama headed to New Jersey to campaign with Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine.  And earlier in the week, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele visited the Garden State for an appearance with GOP challenger Chris Christie.

In political campaigns, the stakes are high and time is always short. A short hiatus, such as baseball’s three-day All-Star break, appears – at least at first glance – to be unwise and impractical. But think about it for a moment.

Baseball takes a three-day break while teams are competing for first place, players are chasing records, and milestones are approaching – and it does not diminish interest in the sport or the intensity of competition.  In fact, teams, players and fans can be re-energized by the break, making for a more exciting second half of the season.

The All-Star break does something else for baseball that would benefit politicians: It humanizes the players. True, they are superstars with tremendous physical skills, but we also see how much they are just like us. Like fans, they take pictures and videos of the players and festivities. We see them with their wives and children (and in some cases, parents) at events such as the All–Star Red Carpet Parade and the Home Run Derby. And when they meet the President of the United States, their faces exude the same sense of excitement, nervousness and honor that any American would display.

Politicians often try to paint a similar picture. They strive to humanize themselves because they know there is a value to making voters feel that they are just like them. As Roland Barthes wrote in an essay about photos used by politicians: “A photograph is a mirror, what we are asked to read is the familiar, the known; it offers to the voter his own likeness, but clarified, exalted, superbly elevated into a type. This glorification is in fact the very definition of the photogenic: the voter is at once expressed and heroized, he is invited to elect himself.”

Another significant occurrence that takes place during the All-Star break is the opportunity to see that athletes who are fierce competitors throughout the season can actually appreciate and respect each other’s talents, and work together as a team toward a common goal. Political campaigns, by their nature, rarely allow for such dynamics. Instead, opponents are attacked and demonized in an effort to obtain victory at the polls.

Despite any benefits that may accrue if politicians followed baseball’s lead and took a short mid-campaign break, chances are slim that it will ever happen. But we do have some history that lends additional support to the concept.

After the 9/ll terrorist attacks, politicians – including New Jersey’s gubernatorial candidates – put their campaigns on hold. When they did resume, the tenor was more civil and the debate was more substantive than personal. Granted this was reflective of the mood of the nation at that time, but the different view we saw of the candidates was much like the different view we see of baseball players during the All-Star break.

We experienced a similar moment last year after popular TV journalist Tim Russert passed away during the presidential campaign.  For one day during the hotly contested race, Barack Obama and John McCain were not rivals competing for the highest office in the nation. Instead, at Russert’s funeral at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., they sat side by side, two of many people who had come to pay their last respects to a man they all admired.

Will we see any similar camaraderie in New Jersey during this year’s governor’s race? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean we should refrain from taking inspiration from baseball. As the president said before Tuesday’s All-Star game, “As a sport, baseball has always embodied the values that make America great – hard work, leadership, passion and teamwork.”

Indeed, these are traits that can lead to success on the ball field, on the campaign trail and in virtually all aspects of our lives.

# # #

Just What Does $340,000 Buy You These Days?

By Richard A. Lee

By raising more than $340,000 for his independent campaign for governor, Chris Daggett has qualified for public matching funds, as well as the right to participate in two official debates this fall.

Just what else will result from having met the $340,000 threshold is not so clear.

Does it give Daggett a realistic opportunity to compete with the two major party candidates? Will his candidacy take votes away from Republican candidate Chris Christie? Can it somehow hurt Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine’s chances for re-election? Or will it simply be a wash with relatively equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters opting for an independent candidate?

We won’t know the answers to these questions until after Election Day in November, but in the interim, there will be plenty of speculation. For my part, I decided to take a look at three research studies on independent and third-party candidates and see how the findings may – or may not – apply to this year’s race for governor in New Jersey.

There is a progression in the three studies. The first takes a broad look at challenges to our two-party system; the second focuses on minor party candidates in gubernatorial elections, and the third examines the successful campaign of a third-party candidate for governor – Jesse Ventura, who was elected governor of Minnesota in 1998. Here is what I found:

Challenges to the American Two-Party System: Evidence from the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 Presidential Elections by Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, Philip Paolino and David W Rohde (2000)

In this study, the authors found that independent candidates benefit when voters’ connections with the major political parties are weakened. Moreover, dissatisfaction with the major party candidates – as opposed to their parties – played a greater role in voters’ support for independent candidates. According to the study: “The people supporting an independent candidate are not those harboring a long-developed disaffection from the major parties, but rather are those who can be moved to express anti-party views because, and probably only because, they are disaffected from the parties’ candidates in a particular election.”

In New Jersey’s race for governor, both major party candidates have been blaming the opposing party for today’s dire economic conditions. At the same time, there have been many direct attacks upon both Corzine and Christie. Based on this study’s findings, independent candidates such as Daggett would benefit more if the major party candidates target each other, rather than their political parties.

Picking Their Spots: Minor Party Candidates in Gubernatorial Elections by Steve B. Lem and Conor M. Dowling (2006)

Lem and Dowling examined gubernatorial elections in all states between 1982 and 2000. Their research was designed to determine why minor party candidates run for office when the chances of winning are slim. The authors also suggested that independents can benefit from “ideological gaps” left by the major party candidates. Such gaps create opportunities “to offer something different than the Democrats and Republicans,” they wrote.

Providing voters an alternative to the major party candidates has been a big part of Daggett’s message. By exploiting gaps in the Corzine and Christie campaigns, he and the other non-major candidates in the race could increase their appeal to New Jersey voters if this year’s election is consistent with Lem and Dowling’s findings.

The Origins and Impact of Votes for Third-Party Candidates: A Case Study of the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial Election by Dean Lacy and Quin Monson (2002)

Of the three studies, this is the most interesting in that it explores the circumstances surrounding an independent gubernatorial candidate who won an election. However, many of the factors accounting for Jesse Ventura’s 1998 victory in Minnesota were unique to that campaign.

While Ventura entered the race with high-name recognition due to his career as a professional wrestler, he also benefited from a well-timed newspaper report, a rare state election law, creative use of public funds, the absence of an incumbent on the ticket, and a tight campaign between the two major party candidates, both of whom had emerged from hotly contested and potentially divisive primary elections.

According to Lacy and Monson, as late as mid-October, polls were showing Ventura with just about 10 percent of the vote. But his numbers rose steadily in the latter part of October – so much in fact that on the Sunday before Election Day, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he had a realistic chance of winning the election. The report had a profound and positive impact for Ventura.

“Even though he never officially led in the pre-election polls, the signal communicated to voters through the press was that Ventura was in a position possibly to win,” the authors explained. “In the close three-way race this significantly reduced the incentives to vote strategically.  Third party candidates face a perpetual problem of losing their supporters to strategic voting: third party voters often defect to their second most preferred candidate in order to avoid electing their least preferred candidate. With his momentum in the polls and eventual victory, Ventura overcame the usual trend.”

The timing of the newspaper report was extremely beneficial for Ventura because Minnesota is one of the few states that allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day, making it possible for those who decided to support him – even at that late stage of the campaign – to cast ballots. Ventura’s rising poll numbers also made it likely he would qualify for public funds – but not until after Election Day. So he took out a loan, used it for late advertising and paid it back after the election.

The scenario in New Jersey this fall will be much different, but one element of Lacy and Monson’s findings may have implications in the Garden State, where Democrats hope to nationalize the election and benefit from President Obama’s popularity, while Republicans contend that state issues will determine the outcome. The study found that voter attitudes on the condition of the nation had no effect on Ventura’s support. Conversely, the condition of the state played a more significant role.

“Ventura’s electoral success was due to dissatisfaction with Minnesota government rather than a reaction to national conditions,” Lacy and Monson wrote. “People who believe Minnesota is on the right track are more likely to vote for the major-party candidates than for Ventura.”

* * *

These research studies provide a good starting point for discussion of New Jersey’s race for governor. At the end of the day, however, every election is unique with its own set of candidates and circumstances. How Chris Daggett and the other candidates fare in New Jersey in 2009 will be determined by the distinctive factors in place in our state this year.

# # #

Political Allies Don’t Always Sing in Tune

By Richard A. Lee

In a symphony orchestra, each musician has a specific role, but as a group they work in unison toward a common goal – to make beautiful music. If just one member of the orchestra decides to do things differently, the results can be disastrous.

The dynamics of symphony orchestras come to mind because of two recent events in which political allies appear to be singing from different song sheets.

The first of these took place on Thursday at a Congressional hearing on deferred prosecution agreements. For New Jersey Democrats, the session conducted by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law provided an opportunity to score political points because the star witness was GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie and the agenda included questions regarding deferred prosecution agreements that took place while he was the state’s U.S. Attorney.

Not surprisingly, Republicans charged that the hearing was politically motivated (Christie labeled the session a political circus after he finished his testimony). Meanwhile, Democrats argued that the hearing was needed to determine whether deferred prosecution agreements require additional oversight, as proposed in legislation co-authored by two Democratic New Jersey congressmen. That’s not a bad argument – unless someone from your own party starts singing from a different song sheet.

And that’s more or less what happened when a member of the Obama Administration testified that deferred prosecution agreements – in their current form — have been an effective part of the federal government’s efforts to combat corporate fraud. He also warned that the proposed legislation would weaken those efforts. “The bill would impede the government’s enforcement efforts against corporate and financial frauds by limiting our discretion in appropriately prosecuting cases,” Gary Grindler, a deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice, told the committee.

Grindler is a seasoned attorney who supervises the Justice Department’s enforcement of anti-fraud laws, so his comments should not be taken lightly.  But in the context of New Jersey’s gubernatorial election, his testimony was ill-timed for Democrats, and Christie seized the opportunity quickly. “I agree with the Obama Administration, who think that what we did was completely appropriate,” he told politickernj after the hearing. “You heard the official from the Obama Justice Department say that they wouldn’t change a thing about what we did.”

Could the situation have been avoided?  In this case, if the White House knew that Grindler’s testimony was going to undercut an effort to tarnish Christie’s reputation, the administration could have warned New Jersey Democrats that the hearing might not be such a good idea and urged that they cancel or postpone the session. Or perhaps the White House could have had Grindler take a little more time to review the proposed legislation, so that he could tell the committee the Justice Department was still studying the proposal, instead of trashing it.

Closer to home, there was another disconnect – this one involving the election of a lieutenant governor for the first time in New Jersey history. According to the state Constitution, gubernatorial candidates have 30 days from the date they are nominated to select a lieutenant governor running mate. This generally was interpreted – by the candidates, the media and political experts – as 30 days from New Jersey’s June 2 primary election, which would have placed the deadline at July 2.  But it turns out that candidates do not officially become nominees until the primary election results are certified by the Secretary of State, and Nina Mitchell Wells, who serves as Secretary of State in Governor Corzine’s cabinet, did not certify the results until June 26, giving candidates until July 27 to select their running mates.

In the grand scheme of things, the extra 25 days may matter little in November, but it is puzzling that Wells did not clarify the deadline sooner.  As far back as April, news reports were indicating that the deadline was July 2, and it appears that both major candidates were operating under the same timetable.  Why not set the record straight sooner?

What these two episodes illustrate is just how difficult it is for a chief executive to keep tabs on every agency and every employee in his or her administration – something that President Obama discovered quickly when a passenger jet and an F-16 fighter plane were authorized — apparently without his knowledge — to fly over New York City for an unannounced photo op that rekindled fears of the 9/11 attacks.

Political campaigns face similar challenges. They must keep large numbers of people on message when the stakes are high, time is short, and egos are gigantic. No campaign is perfect. For all of its historic accomplishments, the Obama campaign still made its share of mistakes.

Successful campaigns manage to move past their missteps so they become mere blips on the radar screen. For unsuccessful campaigns, missteps can become emblematic of flawed and failed efforts — as in images of Michael Dukakis at the controls of a tank in his 1988 bid for the presidency. Here in New Jersey, it is unlikely that any of this year’s candidates for governor will run perfect campaigns immune from mistakes. But come November, how they handled those missteps could be what makes the difference between winning and losing.

# # #

For NJ: Nothing Finer When Compared to Carolina

By Richard A. Lee

First it was New York, where bickering lawmakers have been unable to decide who is in charge of the State Senate. Now it’s South Carolina doing its part to make New Jersey look good in comparison to the other 49 states.

For this we can thank South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford whose whereabouts were a mystery for a few days. According to news reports:

• Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, who is second in command, did not know where Sanford was, and she was not put in charge of the state during his absence.
• The governor’s wife Jenny and their four children did not hear from him for several days, even on Father’s Day.
• Calls placed to Sanford’s cell phone went straight to voice mail, and he did not respond to text messages.
• The State Law Enforcement Division, which provides security for the governor, was unable to reach Sanford.
• Several days after the governor disappeared from public view, his spokesperson, Joel Sawyer, said he had not spoken with Sanford nor was he aware of any other staff member who had. Sawyer did note that the governor told his staff where he was going planned to check in, but said little else about his whereabouts.

The mystery surrounding the governor came to an end on Wednesday when he returned to work and announced that he had been in Argentina and had been having an affair with a woman from the South American country. Earlier in the week, Sanford’s staff had told reporters that he was been hiking on the Appalachian Trail.

We’ve had our share of well-known missing persons in New Jersey – from former State Senator and Assemblyman David Friedland who faked his death and vanished in 1985 after his conviction on racketeering charges, to Atlantic City Mayor Bob Levy who was missing for nearly two weeks in 2007 in the aftermath of allegations about false claims in his military records.

But to the best of my knowledge, New Jersey has never had a governor go AWOL – not that some haven’t tried to escape the public spotlight from time to time.

Governor Whitman apparently was quite good at the practice, according to a lengthy Star-Ledger profile published during her 1997 re-election campaign. The story recounts tales of the governor climbing out of a window in her office, donning a wig and hat to sneak past State Troopers, and even dropping down into the moat and climbing over a stone wall to escape to a local pub during a national governors’ conference.

Living under a microscope cannot be fun, so it is no wonder that public figures relish their rare opportunities to enjoy the type of privacy that is afforded to the general public. President Obama recently said that’s one of the reasons he takes pleasure in playing golf. For six hours, he gets to feel normal, the president told Harry Smith on CBS’ Early Show. “There are a whole bunch of Secret Service guys, but they’re sort of in the woods,” he said. “It feels as if you you’re out of the container, and actually – I realize now – as close as you’re going to get to being outside of this place.”

Obama’s point is well taken. Everyone, including presidents, needs a break every now and then.  And every public figure also has a personal life and the issues that come with it. But presidents, governors, mayors and other elected officials also have obligations to the people they serve – and that means taking proper steps and following proper procedures. We shouldn’t stand for anything less in New Jersey – and neither should the citizens of South Carolina or any other state in the union.

# # #

A New York State of Mind Could Impact NJ

By Richard A. Lee

When I worked in the Governor’s Office, one of the strategies we employed during difficult budgetary times was to show that things were even worse in other parts of the country.

One year, I authored an op-ed article pointing out that Arkansas was eliminating scholarships to state colleges, Arizona was closing parks, Maine was raising its gas tax, and Kansas was doubling franchise fees for companies conducting business in the state.

On paper, demonstrating that the grass is not always greener on the other side sounded like a good strategy. But in practice, its impact was minimal. No matter what draconian actions were being taken elsewhere, New Jerseyans were not about to forget about taxes and fees, cutbacks in programs and services, and the use of one-shot revenue sources to balance the budget.

But things could be different this year thanks to our neighbors to the north.

In case you haven’t been following the adventures of the New York State Senate over the past week or so, lawmakers in the Empire State have engaged in a bizarre series of activities that make politics in New Jersey look good by comparison. As former New York mayor Edward Koch told The New York Times. “I believe it’s not only disgraceful, but it makes New York look like a banana republic.”

Democrats held a 32-30 majority in the New York Senate until June 8 when two of their members joined with the 30 Republicans to form a new majority. But before the new majority could vote to elect one of its members to lead the Senate, Democrats abruptly adjourned the session. Republicans then argued that the session was not properly adjourned and proceeded to elect a new Senate President and Majority Leader. Meanwhile, Democrats maintained that the vote was illegal and that they still held the leadership posts.

The new Republican-led coalition attempted to conduct business, but was unable to do so because the bills that required action had been locked in a desk by Democratic lawmakers.  In addition, Democrats asked Governor David Paterson to change the locks on the Senate chamber (a request that was denied), and one of the Democratic Senators who had joined with the Republicans to form the new majority returned to the Democratic caucus, creating a 31-31 deadlock among the 62 members in the upper House.

So why might this situation be a more effective tool for New Jersey strategists than the drastic fiscal steps that other states were taking several years ago?

To paraphrase Dorothy: it’s because this isn’t Kansas anymore. It’s one thing to run off a list of tax hikes and funding cuts from unfamiliar states that many New Jerseyans may never visit, let alone take the time to scrutinize their budgets. It’s much different when the action is taking place closer to home. Not only do we share a border with New York, we also share a media market. With all respect to the news organizations and journalists in our state, the truth is large numbers of New Jerseyans obtain their news from New York television, which has given extensive coverage to the battle over leadership of the New York Senate – as have New York newspapers and radio, which also have sizeable audiences in the Garden State.

All of this creates an opportunity for Governor Jon Corzine and the Democratic majority in the New Jersey Legislature as they put the finishing touches on this year’s state budget. Given the current fiscal climate, the budget may not offer much in the way of good news, but it will look much better in the context of what is transpiring in New York State. New Jersey Democrats can rightfully argue that – even if citizens are unhappy with components of the budget – at least they made tough decisions and managed to enact a budget on time, in difficult economic times, and without the bedlam taking place in our neighboring state, where legislators cannot even agree on who is in charge.

Of course, New Jersey Republicans can just as easily point to 2006 when Democrats were unable to come to agreement on the budget before the June 30 Constitutional deadline, leading to a shutdown of state government. But that was three years ago, and people’s memories are short – even shorter when the images of the chaos in New York are being emblazoned in their minds by the New York-based media organization from which many of our residents obtain their news and information.

# # #

Looking for Balance in All the Right Places

By Richard A. Lee

Are New Jersey’s candidates for governor overlooking an important factor as they search for lieutenant governor running mates?

To date, it appears that the candidates have been seeking to balance their tickets by choosing a running mate whose ethnicity, gender, ideology and/or geography brings balance to the ticket.

But one important factor that has been absent from the discussion about balance is age.

Governor Jon Corzine is 62. Chris Christie, his Republican opponent, is 46.  But the gap between their ages is not nearly as wide as the gap that separates the two of them from millennial generation voters — individuals who were born between 1981 and 1990. This is a group that played a critical role in last year’s presidential election, and its members should not be taken for granted in this year’s campaign for governor.

The current crop of lieutenant governor candidates, however, does little to narrow the gap between millennials and the political establishment in New Jersey.  Of the names that have surfaced as potential running mates – Democrats Barbara Buono, Doug Palmer, Albio Sires, Bonnie Watson Coleman and Loretta Weinberg and Republicans Jennifer Beck, Kathe Donovan and Diane Allen — only one (Beck) is under 55. (Two 40-year-olds, Democrat Cory Booker and Republican Thomas Kean Jr., were regarded as possible lieutenant governor candidates until each indicated he was not interested in the post.)

It is easy to argue that age should not be a factor.  People are living and working longer than ever today, making productive contributions to society.  And there is no substitute for the experience and institutional knowledge that any of these possible lieutenant governor candidates would bring to the job.

But perception often is more important than reality in the world of politics.

The most important responsibility of the lieutenant governor is to assume leadership of the state should the governor leave office – either by choice, or due to illness, accident or even death.  With this in mind, a bright and energetic running mate could be perceived as an asset.  The lieutenant governor, like the governor, needs to be just 30 years of age, according to the New Jersey State Constitution. To appeal to younger voters, a candidate need not be in his or her early thirties, but he or she must be someone who understands that the issues and priorities of millennials are markedly distinct from older citizens.

Beyond perception, there is a practical reason for selecting a running mate who can appeal to younger voters. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University found that some 23 million individuals under the age of 30 voted in the 2008 presidential election – an increase of 3.4 million from the 2004 election.

“The 2008 election not only marked the election of America’s first African-American president, it also saw the strong and clear political emergence of a new, large and dynamic generation and the realignment of American politics for the next 40 years,” Morley Winograd and Michael Hais wrote in a piece for NDN, a think tank and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

For political parties in New Jersey and elsewhere, there is an advantage to reaching out to young voters that may extend far beyond a single political campaign. According to the Century Foundation, a public policy research institution with offices in New York and Washington, D.C., “Studies point out that voting is habit forming, with the odds increasing significantly that, once a person has voted, he or she will vote again, indicating long-term impacts on parties and politics.”

Lastly, there are intangible benefits to bringing young people into the process. They have more at stake in the long-term future as opposed to short-term gains – a factor that can lead to sounder public policy decisions.  In addition, what they lack in experience can be offset by the fresh approach they bring to issues that have been unresolved for years.

A few years ago, I went back to school to earn a Ph.D. in media studies. It has been a great experience, and a big part of this positive experience has been what I have learned from professors who are younger than I am and students who are even younger.  My generation – Democrats and Republicans alike – has left the State of New Jersey with plenty of problems. As we search for solutions, a good place to find them may be with our next generation of leaders.

# # #

The Race for Governor: A Few Suggestions for the Candidates

By Richard A. Lee

Now that the New Jersey’s primary election is complete and the candidates for governor are official, here is my advice for Chris Christie and Jon Corzine as they plot strategy for the upcoming campaign.

Campaign Recommendations for Chris Christie:

1. Pack your schedule with events that show how state government frustrates and angers New Jersey citizens. The problems may not be Jon Corzine’s fault and some may even be beyond his control. But as the man in charge, he is the face of state government.  The more you can remind people they are unhappy, the more likely they are to vote for change.

2. Build on your strongest asset – your record as U.S. Attorney – to reach a broader audience.  No one is going to argue with cracking down on corrupt politicians, but how many New Jerseyans really feel they were directly impacted by Sharpe James, Wayne Bryant or any of the other public officials who were convicted or pled guilty during your tenure? If there is something that people can relate to better, then capitalize on it.  Look at all the attention other officials are getting for their efforts to tackle schemes that make it nearly impossible for average citizens to buy tickets for Bruce Springsteen.

3. Show some humility once in a while.  So far, your responses to various charges that have come your way have been characterized by denial and anger. The primary was just a warm-up for the general election, so get used to the criticism. Even if you are in the right, at least acknowledge that your actions may have created an incorrect perception. The public respects leaders who are confident enough to admit when they have made a mistake. President Obama took the blame for some early missteps in his administration, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt his favorability numbers.

4. Run your campaign against Jon Corzine, not Jim McGreevey.  Invoking McGreevey’s name may fire up ardent supporters, but the former governor is not on the ballot. Be fair to voters and focus on the person who is on the ballot, especially at a time when families are more concerned with putting food on the table than they are with someone who left office nearly five years ago.

5. Start a physical fitness routine and tell the world about it.  A candidate’s physique has nothing to do with his or her ability to govern, but we do live in a visual age and people do make comments on individuals’ appearances – especially those individuals are in the public spotlight. Why not have some fun with it and get some added attention from the public and the press as you work to shed a few pounds before Election Day? It will help to humanize you at a time when many voters feel disconnected from their elected officials.

Campaign Recommendations for Jon Corzine:

1. Pack your schedule with events designed to show that your opponent has not presented a viable alternative to addressing the state’s fiscal problems. It’s easy to make promises to lower taxes and reduce the size of government; it’s much harder to deliver and present specifics. Take every opportunity you can to explain the severity of the fiscal problems you confronted and the difficult decisions you had to make.

2. Play to your base.  Democrats outnumber Republicans in New Jersey, and the state’s independent voters tend to lean left, so keep the traditional Democratic constituencies – labor, seniors, minorities, etc. – happy.  Now is not the time to think outside the box and do something radical that angers your base. There will be plenty of opportunities to be more creative in a second term when you don’t need to worry about running for re-election.

3. Attack Chris Christie’s strengths.  He is a candidate who has built his campaign on his record as a U.S. Attorney who successfully cracked down on corruption in New Jersey. But he is largely a one-issue candidate. If you can throw him off this solitary message, he will be in a much weaker position.  Questions raised during the primary about some of Christie’s activities put him on the defensive and made it difficult for him to capitalize on his record. The same strategy could produce similar results in the general election.

4. Attack Chris Christie’s weaknesses.  Remind voters that Christie has limited experience as an elected official and that the job of governor involves dealing with a long list of public policy issues.  Do something gubernatorial every day to contrast what you do with what he has not done.

5. Run your campaign against Chris Christie, not George W. Bush.  Invoking Bush’s name may fire up ardent supporters, but the former president is not on the ballot. Be fair to voters and focus on the person who is on the ballot, especially at a time when families are more concerned with putting food on the table than they are with someone who has left public office and has been doing his best to remain out of the public spotlight.

# # #

Can Politics Learn A Lesson from Academia?

By Richard A. Lee

At this time of the year, as we attend graduation ceremonies for family and friends and reflect upon the messages offered by commencement speakers, we may want to think about the world of politics for a moment.  There may be a lesson or two we can learn from the manner in which our colleges and universities operate.

A graduation is a happy event that marks the successful conclusion of an academic experience. Students celebrate their accomplishments and accept congratulations as they bid farewell to school.

Contrast graduations with how our elected officials leave the world of politics. Sometimes the end comes at the conclusion of a bitter election campaign. For others, it is an arrest, an indictment or an embarrassing personal revelation that brings a career to a sudden close.  Although there are some elected officials who leave the public spotlight on their own terms, they are few and far between. And many of those who “retire” and choose not to seek re-election are pushed to their decisions – by the threat of a primary challenge, sinking poll numbers, or a phone call from a powerful county chairman.

More often than not, the end of a political career is not something we celebrate with same enthusiasm as the end of an academic career. Let’s explore why.

For starters, education is something that generally takes place over a set period of time, with a defined starting point, a goal and a scheduled end point: four years to earn a diploma and a degree, and then move on. Political careers have less structure.  They have starting points, but the goals are not always clear, and they may differ substantially, depending on an elected official’s political party. For those in legislative bodies like ours in New Jersey, there is no planned end point — nor is there a specific goal akin to graduating — since there are no term limits. For those in places with term limits, there are aspirations to higher offices that blur or erase the end points.

Taking things a little further, there is a progression that takes place from year to year in education. Students enter as freshman and learn the ropes before they are accorded the privileges of upper classmen.  In state legislatures and Congress, freshman lawmakers have the same duties and responsibilities as colleagues who have been in office for a decade or more. Their votes carry the same weight, even though they have far less experience and institutional knowledge.

Schools also have standards for admission. They consider test scores, transcripts and other factors to ensure they have the best and brightest in their institutions. But there are no educational standards required to get one’s name on the ballot. An ample number of signatures on a petition is about all that is needed to do the trick. Lawmakers make critical decisions on issues that directly impact the quality of our lives, such as fiscal policy, education and healthcare. Yet there is no requirement that the men and women making these decisions have demonstrated the intellect to address them.

Lastly, academic institutions are very good at weeding out students who fail to cut the mustard. In fact, students can flunk out after just one semester. But once lawmakers take office — barring an extraordinary event – they are there for the full term, regardless of how they perform.

So should places such as New Jersey incorporate elements of academia into their governments? Should lawmakers’ official duties and responsibilities vary with experience? Should we set educational standards for holding office? Or establish term limits so lawmakers have clearly defined end points and goals?

No, we are not ready for such drastic changes, and the truth is we may never be. Politics and education are different fields that serve different functions in society. But there is a value in examining successful models from other disciplines to learn how others approach challenges and build foundation for success.

A few years ago, political scientist Larry Sabato wrote a book titled A More Perfect Constitution in which he laid out 23 proposals to re-invent federal government. The suggestions were bold and radical. They called for changing the structure of the House and Senate, establishing a new, six-year, one-time presidential term, and overhauling the primary system that political parties use to select their candidates for president.

Odds are Sabato’s proposals are too extreme and too controversial to gain widespread support, but they do provide a starting place for the constructive dialogue and conversation we need to change things for the better. Likewise, we are not about to re-model government after colleges and universities, but if the concept sparks debate and discussion, perhaps it can lead to something good.

# # #

Technology and the Changing Face of Political Campaigns

By Richard A. Lee

Ever since the Clinton-Gore campaign used a primitive version of the internet to keep in contact with staff members in 1992, it seems that every successive election gets labeled as a “net election” that will change the nature of politicking. Last year’s presidential campaign did more than merely continue this pattern. The Obama campaign used technology so creatively and effectively that it may have permanently altered the dynamics of politics in America, and possibly internationally.
It is unlikely that New Jersey’s 2009 gubernatorial election will have as dramatic an impact on the future of campaigning, but there have been significant developments in technology over the past four years that may influence strategy and change some of the dynamics from what they were the last time we elected a governor. When Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester squared off against each other in 2005, YouTube was in its infancy, the only people on Facebook were students, and Twitter didn’t even exist. This year, all three are essential tools being utilized by candidates all over the nation.

But not only do YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other forms of new media provide another means of conveying news and information about a candidate, they also offer campaigns the ability to bypass the media and communicate directly to voters. Citizens no longer need to rely on newspapers, radio and television to gather and deliver information about the candidates and their platforms. On one hand, this makes political information more readily accessible than ever. But on the other hand, the information often bypasses the gatekeepers of traditional journalism, whose role it is to scrutinize, challenge and verify information before it is provided to the public. Instead, campaigns can now post their press releases, photos and videos online and email them directly to voters. Whether reporters show up to cover a press conference may have far less consequence today since campaigns can record the conferences and send video clips to their contact lists – and probably target the clips for different audiences to achieve maximum impact.

The implications of this trend are significant. If voters rely more heavily on unfiltered information from campaigns (as they may, due to the popularity of the internet as an information source and the downturn in the media industry which has limited the content and quality of many news organizations), they are unlikely to obtain the objective, factual information required to make informed choices in the voting booth.

So what does all of this mean for New Jersey and this year’s campaign for governor?

It means more responsibility for all of us. We have more sources for news and information than ever, but no one is going to sort out the good, the bad and the ugly for us. To make intelligent, informed decisions, we need to become intelligent, informed media consumers. That means obtaining as much information as possible – from as many different and divergent sources as possible – before making up our mind on an issue or a candidate. Think about it. We all go through a process like this when we buy a house, a car or a computer. Surely, we should do the same when it comes time to select our next governor.

‘Pseudo-Events’ Won’t Tell Us Who Should Be Governor

BY: RICHARD A. LEE

Late last month, the Star-Ledger ran a story indicating that Governor Corzine had yet to formally announce his plans to seek re-election.

While it is true that the Governor has not held a large major campaign kick-off event, it is clear that — as the story noted — he is in fact seeking re-election. He has submitted the required papers to the Division of Elections to be on the ballot in November; he has a campaign web site, staff and headquarters, and he has been keeping a public schedule that suggests he is in campaign mode.

And a few days after the Ledger story appeared, Corzine told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell – on live national television – that he plans to be in the race. “I am going to be running,” he said. “I think that’s the first time I’ve said that on television, so you’re breaking news. Although, everybody knows that we filed our papers in front of the primary deadline. We’re actively pursuing building our organization and preparing to run.”

The truth is the large scale public announcements that candidates make rarely are announcements at all. By the time the formal announcements take place, we already know they are running. Regardless of political party or the office being sought, these announcements are what historian Daniel Boorstin labeled “pseudo-events” that are staged to garner media coverage and shape public opinion. Boorstin, in his 1962 book ”The Image: Or What Happened to the American Dream,” offered this description of a pseudo-event:

“It is not spontaneous, but comes about because someone has planned, planted, or incited it… It is planted primarily (not always exclusively) for the immediate purpose of being reported or reproduced. Therefore, its occurrence is arranged for the convenience of the reporting or reproducing media. Its success is measured by how widely it is reported.”

This description easily could apply to many of the stories that make their way into newspapers, radio and television stations and the internet news sites today. Although today’s journalists continue to produce powerful investigative and enterprise pieces, there is a danger that cutbacks in the industry are making it increasingly easier for pseudo-events to bypass the gatekeepers and show up as real news.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I have been behind a pseudo-event or two over the course of my career. During the 10 years I worked for Jim McGreevey when he was Mayor of Woodbridge Township, we tried to conduct a press conference or issue a news release every day. I did the math once and it came out to more than 2,500 items. Many of them were legitimate, important news announcements, but we also had our share of pseudo-events, such as the time we brought a councilwoman’s dog to a Town Hall press conference to announce the start of a pet cenus.

But the danger of pseudo-events is not that cats and dogs will get more headlines than they deserve. It is, as Boorstin warned, that “Pseudo-events thus lead to emphasis on pseudo-qualifications.”

Think about that as New Jersey’s 2009 gubernatorial election approaches. The campaign is still in its early stages, but already we have seen:

• A popular talk-radio station hire a former girlfriend of the Governor as an on-air personality;
• Joe the Plumber come to New Jersey for a campaign event; and
• New Jersey comedian Uncle Floyd launch a write-in campaign for Governor.

Like most states in the nation, New Jersey is confronting a series of major issues, with the historic downtown in the economy at the top of the list.

Pseudo-events are fun and entertaining. We enjoy reading about them and watching them. But at the end of the day, they won’t tell us what we need to know most – and that who is best qualified to serve as Governor of the Garden State for the next four years.