With primaries held recently in Massachusetts and upcoming this week in New Hampshire, there are striking differences in the candidates and their parties that gives one pause to compare. In full disclosure, I consider myself a centrist independent voter, more frequently swerving left than right. Although, in my first presidential election, I cast my ballot for Richard Nixon. I also voted for John McCain in the New Hampshire primary of 2000, and right up to his death, I came to think him to be an honorable man, Sarah Palin being a temporary lapse in judgement.
So, I’m looking toward the midterm elections. Sometimes applauding, other times shaking my head in wonder. Here in New Hampshire, ads of Senator Maggie Hassan feature her as I believe she is. Working on behalf of the disadvantaged, the marginalized, and taking a broader view of the energy situation. Not a hint of aggressive “attack mode” in her ads – simply what she believes is right and is willing to work with anyone. She was a bipartisan governor, as was Jeanne Shaheen before her. Both have emerged as strong, thoughtful, effective leaders about whom New Hampshire can be proud. In my view, New Hampshire has been well represented by its current congressional delegation in Washington.
In rather stark contrast, we have Matt Mower, a former Trump aid running for a house seat. You all remember Donald Trump, of the “stolen” election and voter fraud? Yes, well, records show that Mr. Mower voted in the 2016 New Hampshire primary, claiming us to be his home state. But it seems one state wasn’t enough. He further registered, using his parents’ address in New Jersey, to vote in their primary too. This was reported on NPR at the time. Not technically illegal, but doesn’t it raise some serious questions about his integrity, his “moral compass”? Unlike the Hassan ad, his ads feature pictures of President Biden and Speaker Pelosi, whom he claims “run Washington”. Really? Perhaps Mitch McConnell and the Supreme Court might beg to differ. However, in an aggressive agenda, he plans to unseat the incumbent, fire Speaker Pelosi, and then go after the President. Mighty impressive, considering that this is his second run, the first being unsuccessful. It seems that the main, perhaps only thing this candidate learned from his former boss is a penchant using the phrase, “You’re fired.”
Meanwhile, the Republicans vying to oppose Senator Hassan are creating a sort of demolition derby. One is touting his endorsement from the National Rifle Association, which might gain him a few votes, but in the wake of school and mall shootings, I’m not sure it strikes the right note with the general population. Poll after poll shows that Americans are moving in record numbers toward a frustration with gun violence and would support increased regulations of firearms. Nobody talks of repealing the second amendment, but perhaps we should do a little due diligence before letting everyone acquire an assault weapon. This candidate is doing his best to create a “strong man” image, walking the partially constructed wall along the Mexican border. His ad mentions that New Hampshire is being directly threatened by immigration. Unless immigrants are pouring in by the thousands from Canada, I’m not seeing a direct threat. Nor do I feel threatened by immigrants. They’re following the legend and message that we Americans created – that the United States is a land of hope and opportunity. Is he saying that’s not true, and they should all go home? Or worse, are Republican candidates taking us back to the days of “whites only” and “no Irish need apply”? It certainly seems that way.
Someone once said that with age comes wisdom. For some, age only brings fear, suspicion, and a deeply seated desire to go back to some perceived “golden age”. I’m not entirely sure if age brings a more global perspective embracing everyone’s needs, or simply a desire to protect what we have accumulated. That varies, of course, from individual to individual. I was reading a submission some time back in which a frequent writer of letters to the editor, extolled the mystique of “individual initiative”. I’m guessing that he’s a Republican. On a purely philosophical level, that sounds great, and to some extent, I might agree. I tried to instill that value in my students for more years than I can count when I wanted them to put out a bit more effort, but in practicality, there will always be some – in fact many, that need our help. Some will indeed excel, and we know who they are by their accomplishments, while others will merely tread water or continue to sink. Many Americans can’t survive on their own, whether their needs and disabilities are physical, emotional, social, or economic. We can’t all be captains, because there wouldn’t be any people left to do the actual work. We can’t all be lawyers, doctors, entrepreneurs, corporate executives, scientists, professionals. One of the key things I’ve learned over the years is that we’ll always need people to fill spots in all segments of society, and every one of them deserves our respect and our gratitude.
One of the vital lessons in a democracy, ours in particular, which contains not only a broad diversity of ethnicities, but also a broad and diverse set of beliefs and viewpoints, is that it is the job of all true leaders to distill those positions and work to create both a global view and a consensus. We know that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill worked pretty well together, even though many of their personal views were polar opposites. Those that knew Senator Bob Dole spoke of his great capacity to bring consensus to groups with whom he worked, and to use humor to resolve conflict. Not every leader will be in favor forever, as we know. Winston Churchill, one of the most effective leaders of the last century, was voted out of office on several occasions. However, he found ways to work with even those he intensely disliked. Philosophical rigidity can be an enemy to both an ability to lead and to social progress. You can’t move forward, or progress, if you’re constantly looking into the rearview mirror and smiling fondly.
As we move forward into the primaries next week here in New Hampshire, and to the general election in November, my advice to all candidates is this: if you are promoting views that advance some at the expense of others, you’re on the wrong track. Tell us honestly what you intend to do, why and how it will benefit everyone. Not gun owners, not white people, not the healthy and able-bodied, not older people or the comfortably positioned. Don’t point fingers at your predecessors, because we can’t go back in time, but we can identify problems and come up with solutions to them. An illuminating moment from the movie, An American President, makes the point that some running for office don’t really care about solving problems. They just want to point out problems, and tell you who is to blame for them. “That’s how you win elections.” That summary is a scary prospect for democracy. We need to do better. I return to one of my favorite quotes from President Franklin Roosevelt: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” As an electorate, we need to discern those that just want power for power’s sake, those that only wish to protect and perpetuate inequities, and those that truly want to effect change for our society as a whole.
I'm Thinking...No! 