Published: October 18, 2006 11:24 am            

Must we accept status quo?

One of the things people occasionally ask me about my line of work is “Where do you get the ideas for all that stuff you write about?” I usually don’t have a good answer, because most of the stuff just comes from general observations and conversations.

Another reason I don’t have a good answer is because of weeks like this — when no one idea is good enough to deserve its own column. But I’ve got space to fill and scattered thoughts on various subjects. Plus, you’re paying no more than 50 cents for this, so if I don’t float your boat you can go kill a few minutes working on the Cryptoquote (page 5B, for those of you who haven’t jumped ship already).

Last week’s column about negative campaign ads generated two types of response — one suggesting some of the ads this year have really crossed the line (I defy anyone to explain what exactly the line is) and another telling me that Americans don’t have to put up with these ads, that they aren’t a given and that we can do something about them.

While I agree in part (inside the heart of every newspaper columnist lurks at least a shred of idealism), I’m bothered by the logic because I think the way most Americans respond is by not voting. As a voter, that frustrates me. While politicians might pay lip service to the same rationale, I doubt they’re sincere.

Why? Because it seems to me that a great deal of politicians are concerned with getting elected. Seems logical, of course, because getting elected is the only way to remain a politician. And getting elected, it seems, is the easiest when less people vote.

When political strategists try to figure out how to win campaigns, they analyze — in general terms — who cast ballots and why they vote the way they do. They then target those people and build their campaigns around them. Why waste resources on someone who won’t vote anyway?

Furthermore, people who don’t vote regularly or don’t have a consistent voting pattern — the so-called swing voters — may seem desirable, but are much more difficult to persuade. In simple terms, if I were a Republican candidate, I’d make more hay by getting as many loyal Republicans to the polls as I could. If I convince a few undecideds or Democrats to back me, that’s terrific. And, if my negative campaign ads disgust people so much that they refuse to participate in the process… well, at least they’re not voting for my opponent, either.

Maybe these are oversimplifications, and they’re certainly based on trends exhibited in the larger, national races where local voters are almost faceless statistics. Local-level politicians might beg to differ, and I don’t have irrefutable evidence to the contrary. But in Iowa specifically, when the Statehouse is so closely divided, it’s hard for anyone to believe that leaders of both parties are very, very interested in what happens in our local races for the House and Senate.

Now, on to the real pressing issues of the day: How do I feel about the Cubs hiring Lou Piniella as their new manager?

At first, I was a bit disappointed. I’ve made public my desire to serve as — in chronological order — Pope, president of Ashford University and Clinton High School activities director. All three vacancies were filled by people who actually were qualified for the jobs. But manager of the Cubs? The only jobs that could be more up my alley are ergonomic adviser to a firm that designs television remote controls or microwave popcorn taste tester.

Once the initial disappointment wore off, I remained confused. I’m excited that the Cubs have a proven winner who expects success rather than the next Tom Trebelhorn or Jim Riggelman, but I was pretty excited when the Cubs hired Dusty Baker four years ago.

Will Piniella be the answer? Look, if Jim Leyland can take the Detroit Tigers to the World Series, pretty much anything can happen. And if Uncle Lou can’t deliver? Well, neither has anyone else since 1908.

What matters most is the 25 names on the roster when Opening Day rolls around, and also which guys remain on the disabled list. Money for players should not be a problem, but spending it wisely always is. I’m sure the Cubs will put 3 million butts in Wrigley Field seats next year, and I know the ownership understands the profits that could be made from a legitimate title. But connecting those dots into a champagne party in late October has been impossible for just about anyone who’s ever tried in Chicago.

Will we win? Who knows. Will we be entertained? No doubt. Am I more excited about 2007 than disgusted with 2006? Absolutely — and that means the marketing department has done its job.

So go Cubs and go vote. Some of us are too dedicated to ever get turned off completely.

Scott T. Holland’s column appears every Wednesday in the Clinton Herald. His e-mail address is scottholland@clintonherald.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.