Beware politicians who pander to the average within us

Minnesota and the rest of the United States are in the midst of what is sure to be an exciting (and important) election season. The emergence of grassroots interest groups and ideologies on both sides of the political spectrum have generated a lot of anxiety for some incumbents, as well as a lot of excitement for candidates looking to unseat them. This is all in an effort to capitalize on the energy and anger of an ever-more-polarized electorate.

In addition to tracking candidates' positions on issues, I'll be watching the words, phrases and imagery they use when attempting to persuade people to give money, volunteer and eventually vote for them. Though it's early in the campaign, I'm already troubled by one of the communication tactics in play.

It's not coming from just one party, nor is it exclusive to local, state or federal races. It has to do with the use of words like "average," "ordinary" or "everyday" in sound bites and print media.

Here are some examples:

Tom Emmer, in Minnpost: "We represent the average Minnesotan's viewpoint."

Sarah Palin, on the O'Reilly Factor: "If there is a threat at all that perhaps I represent, it is that the average, everyday hardworking American, their voice is going to be heard. ... "

Matt Entenza, on his own website: "In 2004, Matt announced a plan which would have allowed ordinary Minnesotans to buy into the same health care plan enjoyed by state legislators."

I understand why candidates do it --- basically, for three reasons. First, they're trying to suggest that they have a better understanding than their opponent of what we -- the average, ordinary, everyday people -- want.

Second, these are nice, comfortable words that are supposed to create imagery of a desirable lifestyle that everyone would (or perhaps should) want.

Third, they're trying to capitalize on the populist perception that government (elites) has grown too large, suppressing the citizenry's (the people's) freedom while simultaneously losing grasp of what it is we (the people again) really want and need from them.

Words like "average," "ordinary" and "everyday" don't resonate with me. Is it because I am an "elite"? Maybe. I am white and educated and I live in a suburb. That isn't the entire picture, though. I was unemployed for over a year. I have a heap of student loan debt and am close to upside down on the mortgage of my modest suburban home. I also play men's slow-pitch softball and go fishing regularly. Those characteristics might make me "average" in a candidate's eyes -- but that judgment would be premature, for none of them has talked to me, and I don't even know how I would categorize myself.

But that wouldn't be the only premature judgment this political season. The same is being done to my neighbors, my community and my state as well. This doesn't sit well with me. I don't want words like "average" applied to me, my friends of the place we live. It seems strange to ask voters to support candidates who strive to lead a state they would describe that way. I intend to support candidates who are willing to describe a vision of an exceptional state they would like to live in, and then tell me how they plan to reach that outcome.

A gradual slide toward mediocrity would be easy, and perhaps it would even be more comfortable for some. However, this is Minnesota and we're used to doing things better than most. I understand the need to be humble, which we also do well, but it's okay to talk about the things that you'd like to see get better, especially during a campaign. This election season, instead of striving for "average," let's support candidates who plan to make Minnesota something more.

--

Dan Kitzberger, Richfield, works as a legislative assistant in the Minnesota House of Representatives.

Gallery

Fullscreen SlidePrevious Slide

1 of 1

Next Slide