WASHINGTON--Here's a story you may have missed because it flies in the face of the dreary conventional wisdom: When advocates of public programs take on the right-wing anti-government crowd directly, the government-haters lose.
This is what happened in two statewide referendums last week that got buried under all of the attention paid to the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey. In Maine, voters rejected a tax-limitation measure by a walloping 60 percent to 40 percent. In Washington state, a similar measure went down, 57-43.
They lost in part because opponents of the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights measures (known as TABOR) did something that happens too rarely in the national debate: They made a case for what government does, why it's important, and why cutbacks in public services can be harmful to both individual citizens and the common good.
The idea that most voters hate government has an outsized influence on the thinking of both parties. Republicans try to exploit this feeling; Democrats try to get around it.
Only rarely do those who believe in active government take the argument head-on and insist that many of the things government does are necessary and, yes, good. The media almost never discuss what the sweeping dismantling of public services inherent in the rhetoric of the anti-government movement would mean in practice. It's far easier to replay footage from a few tea party rallies over and over, and discuss some vague “mood” in the electorate.
But in Maine and Washington, the voters knew they didn't have the luxury of expressing a mood. They faced up to how limiting future tax revenues would affect the things they expect government to do. And opponents of the TABOR measures brought that idea home in straightforward terms.
In Maine, one ad featured several taxpayers warning about what less government would mean in practice: “Our school budgets have already been cut. This would mean even less money for our classrooms. ... Community health centers could be cut. People rely on them, especially now.” A sympathetic-looking man then appeared on the screen to add: “My wife relies on our home nurse visits. What will we do?”
COMMENTS (1)
"By that logic, it's now a weaker sell."
That doesn't necessarily follow, unfortunately, unless Maine is so perfectly poised as a moderate state that any idea it rejects must automatically be too conservative. In that case, which is arguable but not proven, the idea would indeed now be a harder sell.
That would be nice: but I don't think that's Norquist's logic. "*Northeastern* moderate state" likely means, in Norquist-speak, "left-of-center" (at least). His (sound -- did I just say that?) logic appears to be: if EVEN Maine likes the idea (contrary, perhaps, to expectations), it's not too conservative. But if it doesn't like the idea, well, everyone knows Maine is "northeastern moderate," so ... view full comment
"By that logic, it's now a weaker sell."
That doesn't necessarily follow, unfortunately, unless Maine is so perfectly poised as a moderate state that any idea it rejects must automatically be too conservative. In that case, which is arguable but not proven, the idea would indeed now be a harder sell.
That would be nice: but I don't think that's Norquist's logic. "*Northeastern* moderate state" likely means, in Norquist-speak, "left-of-center" (at least). His (sound -- did I just say that?) logic appears to be: if EVEN Maine likes the idea (contrary, perhaps, to expectations), it's not too conservative. But if it doesn't like the idea, well, everyone knows Maine is "northeastern moderate," so there's no surprise. A pro-TABOR result in Maine is a change that builds momentum; an anti-TABOR result maintains the status quo without hurting the chances of success elsewhere.