The Silent Republican Wins

by: Alan Malavolti

 

Sioux Falls, SD-Mike Rounds announced his candidacy late, began campaigning in February, raised around a mere one hundred thousand dollars, said virtually nothing in public, and won the Republican primary for governor on June 4.  In the days following the election, South Dakota’s pundits have tried to explain why he won.  Most agree Mark Barnett and Steve Kirby defeated themselves, or each other, with their negative campaigns.  These same political experts agree South Dakota voters have sent a clear message to the candidates, “No negative campaigning; no attack ads.”  Such a simplistic assessment is superficially correct, but falls short of the target in explaining why Rounds, The Silent Republican, emerged victorious. 

True, Barnett and Kirby attacked each other, but their campaigns were not as negative as some suggest.  Both candidates challenged their opponent’s proposals addressing the issues facing South Dakota, such as prescription medication for seniors and the economy.  If we really believe candidates who challenge each other’s ideas on the issues is negative campaigning, then we have entered into a kind of political correctness that seriously impedes our political process and undermines the very spirit of democracy. 

It is probable that Barnett created the perception that both candidates engaged in negative campaigning and produced attack advertisements.  It was Barnett who questioned Kirby’s loyalty and commitment to South Dakota by revealing the majority of the money spent by Kirby’s investment company went to out of state corporations.  In a capitalist society that participates in a global economy, interstate business investments hardly constitute a legitimate scandal.  It was Barnett who exposed the fact that Kirby’s company invested in an organization that sold donated skin grafts for cosmetic surgery, while the intended recipients, burn victims, lie dying in the hospital.  It was Barnett who cried negative campaigning whenever Kirby questioned Barnett’s ideas and proposals, though the statistics and projected figures presented by Kirby did seem contrived.  Clearly, Mark Barnett sought the Republican nomination via the low road. 

Steve Kirby was far from your typical angelic alter boy.  When he wrote a pledge to oppose raising the gas tax and invited Barnett to co-sign the document with him, he stooped to one of the favored tactics of a negative campaign.  Of course, an opposing candidate has to refuse signing a unilaterally drafted pledge.  Signing it shows the other candidate as a follower, instead of a leader.  Moreover, the public is never informed of the “fine print,” which usually omits or includes some aspect that forces the opponent to refuse signing.  As Kirby was beginning to turn up the heat on Barnett’s refusal to sign the pledge, Barnett revealed the amount of money Kirby’s investment company spent in other states.  In an attempt to deflect Kirby’s attack, Barnett engaged in what was obviously negative campaigning, since it had little relevance to the issues of South Dakota.  Even though Kirby relied far less on negativism than Barnett, he too should lay awake at night dwelling on his private shame. 

Despite his attempts at subtlety, Barnett was clearly the most negative of the two frontrunners, going into the June 4 primaries.  While South Dakota’s political experts feel Rounds won the primary as a result of Barnett and Kirby’s negative campaigns being rejected by the voters, they offer no explanation for several key points.  First, Barnett, who was clearly the most negative of the two candidates, finished a distant second to Rounds and slightly ahead of Kirby.  Second, most people privately speculated Barnett would win, though Kirby sponsored polls showed him in the lead.  Finally, there has yet to be any condemnation of the Thune supporters’ negative campaign that viciously attacks Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.  If South Dakota Republicans are so opposed to negative campaigns, then Thune, a Republican who is challenging incumbent Senator Tim Johnson, should have been forced to demand a ceasefire by his supporters.  There seems to be more to the Rounds victory than a war weary Republican constituency. 

Barnett’s loss to Rounds may be largely a result of the negative campaigning, but his so-called Blue Print for South Dakota probably did more to force voters away than his campaign strategy.  As the last state in the nation to accept a seatbelt law, only after sending a delegation to object to the federal government’s threat to withhold highway funds unless a law was passed.  To this day, no self-respecting South Dakotan would be caught dead wearing a seatbelt, and few traffic fatalities in this state are found dead with a seatbelt.  South Dakota has yet to pass a law mandating motorcyclists to wear a helmet.  The excuse is the Sturgis Bike Rally; a helmet law would supposedly cause many participants to stay home, although they have to pass through states with helmet laws to get to Sturgis, South Dakota.  Anyone who mentions gun control is forced to retract such a Fascist statement, usually at gunpoint.  The fact is, South Dakotans do not like being told what to do and will often go out of their way to do the opposite.  Mark Barnett, a South Dakotan, should have known this and never produced a Blue Print for South Dakota; the name itself, not just the content, is enough to turn away voters.

Kirby’s problems were not of his own making, technically.  He revealed to the public his expenditures during the campaign were more than two million dollars of his own money.  Having inherited a substantial sum of money, his wealth is not really his fault.  Portraying himself as an exceptional businessman, whose expertise in this area would benefit South Dakota greatly, provided the rationale for many voters to look elsewhere.  As an exceptional businessman, his investment of two million dollars just in the primary election to hopefully gain an office that would not pay him that much seems to many voters as bad business and poor business sense.  Once he made this revelation, the hushed rumors of Kirby attempting to buy the governor’s office began to be discussed more openly.  Finally, South Dakotans do not vote for candidates they perceive as possessing immense wealth.  Whether it is out of jealousy or resentment or some unexplainable deep-seated psychology, it is a true fact that South Dakota will not vote for such candidates, though wealthy candidates whose wealth is not so obvious are often easily elected.  It is strange, granted, but this is the way it is in South Dakota.  The reason Kirby lost to Barnett and Rounds is partially based on his economic status. 

An absolutely shocking number of voters went to the polls to cast their ballots for Rounds, without even knowing his first name!  Even more shocking, Rounds was never really a candidate in the strictest sense of the word.  He flew his airplane from small town to small town, speaking to small groups of people and refusing to issue press releases detailing what he talked about for statewide dissemination.  Producing two or three television advertisements and one major newspaper advertisement was the extent of his mass exposure to the public.  Mike Rounds spent less on his campaign than most tourists spend at Mount Rushmore.  As The Silent Republican, he was advised, due to his lack of time and money, to remain grandly vague, but he took this to an extreme by saying almost nothing at all.  Republican voters nominated Rounds to run for governor in the general election without knowing his first name or his position on any issue!  Any study of why Mike Rounds won has to conclude with an absolute understanding of this strange event and all of the candidates must heed the message this sends.

Supporters of Barnett and Kirby have referred to Rounds as the spoiler; actually he was the ultimate spoiler because he won.  A citizenry that elects a candidate without knowing his name or his agenda are NOT voting FOR that candidate; they are voting AGAINST his opponents.  The primary election on June 4 saw a Republican turn out of nearly half of all registered voters, this is the lesson all candidates must consider when planning their campaign for the general elections.  The Republicans who were adamantly opposed to both Barnett and Kirby or undecided saw a third option in Rounds.  He may have pulled a few voters from either of the two candidates, voters who had selected one or the other as a “lesser of two evils.”  More than this, voters who would have otherwise stayed home on Election Day asked for a ballot to express their displeasure in Barnett or Kirby or both.  

The lesson to all candidates is simply this:  South Dakotans have seen and felt how much power their vote has.  If harnessed, victory.  If harassed, defeat.  Candidates this election year will have to focus on the issues, express their ideas, refrain from negativism, and present themselves as statesmen and women.  In other words, they are going to have to work for South Dakota’s vote, rather than taking the easy way out by dragging their opponents down to the mud they may wish to sling.  For Rounds, the task is slightly different.  He has found a core of supporters that normally pays little attention to politics, even on the day of an election.  Mike Rounds must plan a campaign that ensures they return to the polls in November.  Both Barnett and Kirby have pledged their support to Rounds, he must maintain the support of both throughout the election.  His choice in a running mate is absolutely critical and if he chooses either Barnett or Kirby he is almost certain to lose to the Democrat James Abbott, as the other’s supporters, in typical South Dakota fashion, will flock to Abbott. 

This promises to be an exciting election season in South Dakota, intentionally or not; the Silent Republican and the ordinarily Silent Masses have spoken. 

Alan Malavolti is a contributing writer for PurePolitics.com who lives in Sioux Falls, SD.