The human brain is likely hard-wired to assume that tomorrow
will be like today. This coping mechanism effectively narrows the window of our
cognitive and perspectival range. The status quo not only endures; it is
dominant, whereas reform must push hard to see the light of day. In politics,
establishment interests, made wealthy in the status quo, bet their
contributions on the political insiders—the establishment politicians who
embrace the status quo. As a result, an electorate is manipulated and mislead by
branding ads to the extent that it cannot be said that the real will of the
people is done. The ensuing public policy is also not of that will; rather,
legislation protects the vested interests in return for their contributions. A
republic in the grip of this self-sustaining cycle can be said to suffer from a
kind of hardening of the arteries. As times change, such a ship of state
becomes increasingly unmoored from its people. Eventually, the ship sinks,
after the pressure of incongruity has reached an unsustainable level. I contend
that the 2014 U.S. Senate election in Kentucky between the Senate’s minority
leader, Mitch McConnell, and his Democratic challenger, Alison Grimes,
illustrates this political illness in action.
In a Louisville Courier-Journal poll conducted January 30
through February 4, 2014, only 27 percent of registered Kentucky voters viewed
Mitch McConnell favorably, while fifty percent had an unfavorable opinion of
the minority leader.[1] President Obama’s approval rating came in 2
percentage points above that of McConnell’s. With a 3 percent margin of error, the poll
gave McConnell 42 percent to Grimes’ 46 percent—meaning that were the election
held then and the actual turnout was not skewed, Grimes would be the next U.S.
Senator from Kentucky.
With the U.S. House and the president deadlocked through the
midterm election in November, legislative achievement cannot explain how
McConnell’s 27 percent turned into the 56.2 percent who voted for him.
Similarly, Pat Roberts of Kansas had had low favorability ratings only to come up
with 53.3 percent of the vote. Both senators were Washington insiders who had
strayed from their respective home states. Yet in the end, this is what saved
them.
According to the New York Times, McConnell’s campaign
benefitted from $23 million in spending from independent groups including the
National Rifle Association, the National Association of Realtors, and the
National Federation of Independent Business. The Kentucky Opportunity
Coalition, registered as a social welfare organization, spent $7.6 million on
attack ads against Grimes.[2]
That organization ran more political ads in Kentucky than any other outside
group, which means that Grimes could not counter the critical ads sufficiently.
In short, McConnell’s strategy was at least in part to bring in out-of-state
money to get a chunk of Grimes’ favorable rating. Although positive correlation is not
causation, the widening spread between the two candidates through the summer
and fall, with McConnell on top, coincided with the onslaught of outside-group
spending on attack ads against Grimes.
It is possible that the people of Kentucky sent their
incumbent senator back to Washington in spite his low favorability rating. In
other words, Kentucky’s electorate may have been manipulated and mislead,
deprived in effect of making the choice.
The implications in terms of public policy are just as bad.
Contributors to the “social welfare” organization are not publically listed, so
they have cover should anyone accuse the incoming majority leader of paying
them back with favors. Whereas Grimes as a freshman senator would have much
less power with which to make the favors happen, McConnell’s position as
majority leader attracted the contributions like a tall beacon on a clear
night. The establishment money, in other words, backed up the Washington
insider, effectively protecting the status quo and thwarting real reform.
[1]
James Hohmann, “2014
Election Poll: Mitch McConnell Trails Alison Lundergan Grimes by 4,”
Politico, February 6, 2014.
[2]
The Editorial Board, “Dark Money Helped Win the Senate,” The New York Times, November 9, 2014.
