Let Greitens’ legacy be a step toward campaign and election reform

David Webber, Columbia MISSOURIAN June 1, 2018

Last week, I wrote about how President Donald Trump’s and then governor Eric Greitens’ outsider status, while helpful in getting them elected, failed to prepare them for governing.This week I will dream big and sketch out a reformed electoral system for state-wide offices. State legislative and local offices should have campaign processes designed for plenty of opportunity for new faces and new blood, but state-wide offices, certainly the top spot, should attract experienced officeholders.

Campaigns and elections are overly ripe, some would say rotten, for reform. There are court-imposed obstacles and political interests that can block any significant reform, but the starting point is for party leaders to visualize their ideal selection process, and then seek the advice of election lawyers.

Political parties have always been a murky institution in American politics. We never have clearly decided what they are and whether we even like them, but there needs to be some kind of winnowing process before voters make the final choice among candidates. Missouri political parties need to be more visible, and more central to individual candidates. For almost 50 years now, “running against the party” can earn a candidate a substantial level of support. Many candidates choose to downplay, or even avoid, their party label. Similarly, most voters have no meaningful connection to a political party.

Political parties need to do more than just candidate recruitment. They need to set standards for conducting good campaigns such as expectations about negative advertising, sharing voter information, and disseminating party platforms and positions. It is unlikely that state party committees will judge a candidate’s fitness for office, but voters need help in enforcing expectations of candidates.

As far as term limited elected officials are concerned, with fewer print state-focused political reporters, and an almost infinite array of internet outlets of unknown veracity, there is an empty hole in need of credible, institutional memory.

Political parties can contribute to filling this hole by establishing high quality quarterly policy forums, complete with streaming and podcasts, that aim to elevate the level of public discourse. Otherwise, citizens see no purpose for political parties other than bickering during another campaign cycle.
Greitens’ downfall and resignation serve to highlight three of the major flaws and pitfalls in the American campaign and election system. Greitens is not unique but his rapid rise and steep fall shines a bright light on needed changes.

First, Greitens won 40 percent of the vote in the 2016 Republican primary. About a quarter million votes in a state of more than 6 million people. Certainly a strong showing in a four-candidate race, especially for someone who was not a life-long Republican, but Greitens’ victory that day was short of a majority of voters and far shorter of a consensus.

We need to adopt election rules that require a majority, or even a super-majority, rather than just “the most votes.” A simple method of ranking all candidates or requiring a runoff will expose candidates to more of the electorate. An approval voting method is better than the present “first past the post” method because it encourages multiple candidates, but assures that a candidate with only a sliver of support is not the winner. Keep an eye on Maine’s recent adoption of instant runoff voting.

Secondly, Greitens, like most candidates nowadays, was largely independent of his own party. He raised his own money, a lot of it from unknown sources outside of Missouri, and ran his own campaign.

Greitens was heavily critical of Missouri legislative and political leaders and they apparently had little influence over him. There is just too much money coming and going, some of it delivered in cash for payment of legal services, for citizens to have confidence that the public interest is being pursued.
Public funding, spending caps, and centralized party funding all need to be considered. State-wide candidates need party funding or ambition and dark money will rule.

My most specific suggestion that would revolutionize American politics is as follows: let’s restore citizenship and federalism and limit campaign contributions to state residents. Why are residents from California, Massachusetts, Texas, or other states contributing to Missouri campaigns?
Third, voters are largely unengaged and uninformed. There were media reports of Greitens’ questionable campaign donors before the November 2016 election but it was not a campaign issue. It is likely that if it had not been for the Governor’s sex saga, probably not an impeachable offense, that Grietens’ alleged campaign violations would have been ignored.

Few voters understand, or need to understand, Missouri campaign reporting requirements, dark money, or provisions of the state’s sunshine law. Most candidates don’t either. Unfortunately, universities and the media have done little to serve Missourians’ civic information needs.
Democracy, a political system that converts citizen preferences into public policy decisions, is hard to achieve and maintain but can easily be imitated and distorted for personal political gain.

Inscribed around the top of the dome of the Missouri state capitol are the words from George Washington’s Farewell Address: In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

David Webber joined the MU Political Science Department in 1986 and wrote his first column for the Missourian in 1994.

https://www.columbiamissourian.com/opinion/local_columnists/david-webber-let-greitens-legacy-be-a-step-toward-campaign/article_26d8e96a-6549-11e8-aa34-5b1dd35789fa.html

There must be better ways to select top leaders

David Webber, Columbia MISSOURIAN, May 20, 2018

The continuing travails of President Donald Trump and Governor Eric Greitens should cause citizens to take a hard look at how these men ended up in these positions and ask, “Is there a better way to select our leaders?” . It’s time for political parties to get more formally involved in selecting their candidates for the top elected jobs.

A similarity between Trump and Greitens is they were both outsiders, and hyper-critics of the political establishment. While this gave both candidates the personal advantage of running without a tainted political record, it has proven to be a disadvantage to our nation and state because they were largely untested in governing. Perhaps we have so degraded the American political system through years of cynicism that we believe anyone can be an effective politician. That simply is not true. In earlier times, politics was a noble, perhaps the highest, calling. Aristotle compared politicians to craftsman and physicians who require practical knowledge and sound judgement to be effective.

For may leadership positions, choosing between “new blood” or experience is a serious, delicate choice. Experience too often can be another word for “more of the same” and new blood sounds so inviting and refreshing. Given massive distrust about the political process, I anticipate a wave of “new faces” presenting themselves for elective offices. Cynthia Nixon, a star actor in “Sex and the City,” has already announced for her party’s nomination to be governor of New York—probably one of the top five most difficult jobs in America. Mark Cuban, Oprah Winfrey, Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks,” Dave “The Rock” Johnson, People Magazine’s “sexiest man alive” have all been mentioned as potential presidential candidates. We need to stop this. Just because Michael Jordan and LeBron James are accomplished athletes does not mean they should run for governor, or even mayor.

The roots of our “open,” haphazard nominating process go back to 1968 when neither party, but especially the Democrats, were concerned their party nominating processes were too narrow and appeared to be backstreet deals from smoke-filled rooms. Calls for “opening up the system” with more primaries and less party control resulted in a myriad of candidates with their own political base and accesses to their own campaign funds In the twenty-three years between 1945-1968, under the old convention system, only Dwight Eisenhower publicly sought the nomination of either major party. Between 1972-1992, eight outsiders (five Democrats, and three Republicans) ran for president. Between 1996 and 2016, eighteen (thirteen were Republicans) outsiders ran in their party primaries.

Ronald Reagan, perhaps the best example of a successful “outsider” president, was previously a two-term California governor and head of an actors’ organization that gave his peers an opportunity to judge his personal character and work habits. Eisenhower looks like an “outsider” and “another candidate with military experience” but he was in fact the commander of the largest military organization in the world where he managed and supervised all sorts of subordinates in a rather stressful endeavor.

While novice candidates first appear to be a breath of fresh air” unencumbered with previous party failures and frustrations, they are largely untested in the political arena. Politics is not entertainment, military service, nor private business. The Trump organization is a privately-owned business without external stockholder oversight nor public accounting reports. Likewise, while Greitens has a long record of academic and military honors, his management experience is limited to a nonprofit organization he started and ran with self-selected sponsors and directors. Compare Trump and Greitens’ work experience with that of becoming a partner in a large law firm or a tenured professor where they would have gone through annual reviews by their superiors who set the criteria of evaluation.

What would have Trump and Greitens gained if they had served in a lower office, say the U.S. Senate or the Missouri Senate, respectively? Most importantly perhaps, they would have had to listen to others—at committee meetings, on the chamber floors, to constituents and to lots of reports who could ask follow-up questions. Alpha males, especially, tend to be early bloomers in broadcasting their visions of how things should be but short on essential listening skills.

Secondly, serving a term in another office would have given potential critics and accusers time to come up with the dirt that is better found before they get to a higher political office. Third, they would have an opportunity to see if they really enjoy the demands of a political job. The hours are long, the work can be lonely, the loss of privacy is great, the glory is fleeting. Perhaps some candidates would pick other ventures saving themselves, and us, from wasted time and embarrassment.

David Webber joined the MU Political Science Department in 1986 and wrote his first column for the Missourian in 1994.

https://www.columbiamissourian.com/opinion/local_columnists/david-webber-there-must-be-better-ways-to-select-top/article_60c09988-5c67-11e8-9f5b-97093f2adf7f.html