Editorial 12.9, October 2010, by Deirdre Helfferich Circuses and Service My, what a circus this election is proving to be. While the candidates on the right do their damndest to provide us all with excellent entertainment in the form of slapstick comedy and dystopic horror shows, providing job security for the media and editorial cartoonists, giving journalists plenty to talk about and dig up, Scott McAdams is simply going around the state, er, talking to people. How novel. I took a look at the biographies on McAdams’, Miller’s, and Murkowski’s websites. It was interesting: neither Miller nor Murkowski mention public service, but McAdams does, several times. The other day, a co-worker of mine was editing a story I wrote in which I referred to “public servants.” She highlighted the term as possibly being archaic. It’s a sorry pass when the idea of employees in the public service has been so subjugated to that of government bureaucrats that the term public servant seems archaic even to a professional editor in a university setting. We had an interesting talk about how the term is seen so little in the public discourse these days that it could seem outmoded, and about the anger and hostility toward elected officials these days. When the public doesn’t believe anymore that those in government serve them, they’re not going to use a term to describe them that indicates civility and pride in serving the public well. Yet here is a man running for national office who uses that very phrase, indicating that he does believe that a public employee can and indeed should serve the public. How quaint. And how very intriguing. Unlike Miller, Scott McAdams hasn’t had any journalists handcuffed for asking annoying questions. Nor has he tacked back and forth from an ultra-conservative to moderate stance, depending on which voters he’s trying to woo, like Murkowski. McAdams doesn’t seem to be anything but what he says he is—but that doesn’t mean he’s a patsy or naïve. Looking through the various interviews with him, it’s clear he’s got a tough streak. He’ll need that in Washington, DC. (Check out, for example, his campaign’s look at Murkowski’s voting record, www.lisavotes.com.) Joe Geiss wrote something about meeting McAdams at the debate on October 25 that had a profound effect on me. He said:
I’ve experienced being shunted aside or ignored by self-defined or media-designated bigwigs because I was not readily identifiable as an “important person.” But Alaska is still a damn small state, and the person who isn’t important here doesn’t exist. Murkowski seems to have forgotten that, and it’s doubtful that Miller ever knew it. They’re catering to those they think matter, who are worth their time—as though some of us matter and some don’t. McAdams was demonstrating a couple of things by wandering through the room shaking hands: one, you can’t tell who you should meet by the clothes they wear or where they sit in the room; and two, a politician should go to the people to meet them, not the other way around. That attitude is the right one for a public servant to have, if you ask me. I don’t agree with all of McAdams’ views on the issues, but I’d be hard pressed to find any that I agree with from Miller or Murkowski. McAdams is no Green. He is, however, practical, and I like a lot of what he has to say. I plan to vote for him. I still hear Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in Ester waffling about whether to vote for Murkowski or to vote for McAdams. I find this astounding, given that the Republican vote is finally split, and that the Democrat actually has a good solid chance to win. Not only that, he seems to be a decent man who really cares about Alaska, rather than a career climber or an exteme partisan. My view is, if you vote for a Republican, you’re going to get a Republican, and more than likely, you’ll get Miller. If you vote for a Democrat, you’re probably going to get a Democrat. Vote your fear, and it will fulfill itself. | ||
 | | |
