Harry's Gang: Vote for me and you can have it all

The Democrats are excited to find the right candidate to take on the incumbent in next year’s Presidential election. They’re spending a lot of time and energy to pick the right candidate, and the candidates are spending a lot of energy trying to convince the party that they can carry the day a year from now.

But some of them aren’t making much sense to me. Too many promises, not enough substance. Lack of substance seems to work on the national scale though. It seems like Presidential candidates nowadays can offer anything, no matter how absurd, and get elected. Defeat Isis? I have a secret plan. Student loans? Forgiven! You lost your job? I’ll bring back coal. Lost your job? Free money til you we get you a new one!

I wonder if the same tactic would work in a local election. Let’s say Cloquet is looking for a new mayor. Quite a few people want to be mayor (although I can’t for the life of me figure out why). Taking a cue from national politics, the candidates start campaigning by making promises:

“Elect me, and I’ll make sure your streets are plowed before anyone else’s. I’ll heat your homes, free, all winter. And if you owe on your fuel oil bill from last year. I’ll get it waived. I know that’s not fair to those who paid their bills on time, so, for them, they don’t have to pay their property taxes next year, as a thank you! How will we pay for this? Well, things will be so great in Cloquet that it will pay for itself!”

I can think of only a few people who might vote for such a candidate.

But suppose some practical, experienced leader campaigned this way: “I’d like to be your mayor. I’ll work hard, and I’ll be prepared and attend all the meetings. I can’t promise you more services or better roads or lower taxes, but I’ll give careful consideration to every issue that comes before me. I’ll be respectful and will listen when people want to talk to me, but I can’t promise I’ll do what you want, if it’s not best for the city.”

That might work on a local level. On a national level, though, we’ve already dismissed as “unelectable” several moderates from both sides who would probably provide excellent leadership. It seems we, the people, want flash and promises.

Ray Schow said on CAT-7 recently, “I can promise to pave the streets with gold if I’m elected, but that’s not really going to happen.” He’s right: electing leaders on their promises is foolish. We should be electing leaders on their qualifications. Ray’s frankness didn’t work on a local level; he lost the primary this week to Uriah Wilkenson and Chris Swanson, who, in fairness, hadn't made a bunch of silly promises either.

Medicare-for-All is a similar promise. There’s no doubt that the health care system in our country needs attention. But a massive, hard-to-explain huge government bureaucracy is not the answer. I still prefer ObamaCare. As I said when it was first passed, ObamaCare is a good start. I think a better approach to health care is to examine how the ACA is working out now, strengthen its weaknesses and accentuate its strengths.

That means we get a bunch of experts in the field together, and gather data and information, and examine options. It’s a dull, tedious, and boring process, but it’s effective and the only way to really solve the problem.

Too many candidates like to shout loud slogans and promises. National politics is now more advertising than campaigning, and that’s not a good way to choose our leaders.

Pete Radosevich is the publisher of the Pine Knot News community newspaper and an attorney in Esko who hosts the longtime cable access talk show Harry’s Gang on CAT-7 again. His opinions are his own. Contact him at [email protected].