 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
November
21, 2002 9:00 a.m. By Elaine Donnelly |
|
epublicans are savoring many victories nationwide, but strategists ought
to take an objective look at the Michigan gubernatorial race. Despite
a powerful political surge that elected male and female Republicans across
America and the state, Democrat Attorney General Jennifer Granholm defeated
Lt. Governor Dick Posthumus with an interesting new form of gender politics.
Posthumus did not lose because Granholm is an attractive woman, or because of campaign ads exposing and criticizing her support for "reparations" legislation. That is a legitimate issue on which reasonable people can disagree. Nor was his defeat due to clumsy "gender gaffes," known to have sunk the campaigns of previous male candidates who spoke disrespectfully of women.
Some pundits may conclude that the "reparations" issue was too hot for any Republican to handle, but that would be wrong. Posthumus had every right to pin Granholm to the political mat on that issue. He even had a video clip of his opponent standing before an applauding NAACP audience proclaiming support for reparations legislation. Some Republicans feared that the ads would backfire, even though numerous polls showed strong opposition to reparations legislation. The first of two Detroit News/Mitchell Research polls indicated that the ads did not hurt Dick Posthumus, but Granholm's favorability rating started to slip.
Enter gender politics, but with a subtle new twist. Candidate Granholm began to fight back…like a man. With camera-friendly television ads that put her drama training to good use, Granholm did not deny her support for reparations, but tried to redefine the meaning of the word. Tap-dancing madly, Granholm claimed that reparations are about "equal opportunity," and not about "sending checks."
The line was preposterous, but it worked. When Posthumus failed to respond, he began to look weak in comparison to his assertive female opponent. Then came the coup de Granholm — negative ads featuring carnival-style music that belittled Posthumus mercilessly. The ads were ostensibly about a spending boondoggle by Governor John Engler, but the subliminal theme was an attack on the manhood of Dick Posthumus.
That message, unfair though it was, may have turned-off male voters that Posthumus needed to win. Absent any response, it also reassured male and female voters who were looking for a capable chief executive, regardless of gender. Five days before the election, the Detroit News/Mitchell poll reported that the reparations issue was still harmless to Posthumus, but Granholm was not affected either. Thanks to the unhelpful "advice" of some editorial writers, columnists, and erstwhile Republican friends, who criticized Posthumus for fostering racial "division" between Detroit and the rest of the state, Granholm's lead widened to 13 points.
Pro-life and conservative activists worked hard for Posthumus and several other Republican candidates, including two new members of Congress. Secretary of State candidate Terry Land actually got more votes than Granholm. The inexperienced Posthumus campaign rallied, but still fell short by four points, 51-47.
The outcome may have been different if Posthumus had stuck to his guns and countered Granholm's disingenuous ploy on the reparations issue. The real question was not racial division, but the credibility of a candidate who kept "adjusting" her positions on issues before different audiences.
Witness Granholm's duplicitous position on abortion. Columnist Thomas Bray observed that if Granholm equivocates on abortion, claiming personal opposition while raking in tons of money from EMILY's List, why should the voters trust her on other issues, such as property taxes? Just what did she mean when she said she might "tweak" Governor Engler's tax-cutting Proposal A?
Dick Posthumus could have added reparations to the list of issues on which Granholm was dissembling for the sake of political expediency. It might have been devastatingly effective to combine positive campaign ads with straightforward ones contrasting Granholm's Clintonesque redefinition of "reparations" with the plain meaning espoused by the legislation's supporters.
Detroit Congressman John Conyers has offered his reparations bill in every session since 1989. It calls for establishment of a commission to study the historic effects of slavery, and to consider recommendations for "appropriate remedies" to compensate people whose ancestors labored as slaves. In September 2000 Conyers had to issue a news release warning his constituents about con artists who were soliciting fees to obtain still-unauthorized "reparations compensation." For those of us who favor a lowering of racial tensions, this is not the way to go.
Had Posthumus reaffirmed his position without apology, he would have strengthened his image and weakened Granholm's support among swing voters who, in New Hampshire and Missouri, awarded victories to John Sununu over Jeanne Shaheen, and Jim Talent over Jean Carnahan. Both successful candidates stood firm for Republican principles, without pandering to feminists and liberals who falsely claimed the "key" to winning women's votes.
Gender politics can be a powerful force, but when the ballots are counted, men's votes are as valuable as women's. The Posthumus campaign missed the mark this time, but lessons learned could be helpful in campaigns yet to come.
— Elaine Donnelly, who is president of the Center for Military Readiness and frequently writes on gender issues, resides in Michigan.