There are some issues voters follow closely; typically, issues that directly affect their pocketbooks get their closest attention. There are other issues many people ignore. Sometimes they ignore them because they are not able to see how they have much impact on their lives. Issues like campaign finance reform, for example, get more attention inside, than outside, the Beltway.
Some issues don’t seem to generate much interest from the average voter because they are not easily explained in 30 second sound bites, or they are not widely reported. There are some incidents that might be considered scandals and the source of great outrage if only they received more media attention, or if they were easier for those who pay only casual attention to understand and follow.
An example of a story voters “got” right away was the House banking scandal of the early 90s. While the intricacies of political policy and finance might not be something everyone can easily follow and understand, the fact that members of the House of Representatives were able to routinely write checks for more money than they had in their accounts was something they could. Voters not only understood the story, but they reacted to it at the ballot box.
Most people would not have believed, even as recently as a year ago, that they would ever see the United States government taking over and running a private company. We are used to the government exerting power and influence over business through regulation and tax policy, but in those cases the leaders of the companies still have the power to make decisions about the way the company operates. That is no longer the case in the era of the government bailout.
Reading that a United States president was responsible for forcing the resignation of Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, and hearing the President say the government would guarantee car warranties was hard for me, as an American, to process. The concept of the government exerting such control over a private company is something many Americans, if they are paying attention, will find troubling, but it is also something they will “get.”
Many small GM bondholders are troubled about how their investments were treated and other investors complained of strong arm tactics by the government. Some are upset by the deal the United Auto Workers are receiving and some Chrysler dealers are gearing up for a legal fight.
Many others who are not directly involved in GM or Chrysler are concerned about the yet unknown potential implications of the government takeover of a private company. Americans “get” that this is uncharted territory. They “get” that the power exerted by the government in the bailout/takeover of American auto companies is unprecedented and more than just a little bit scary.
What often holds the attention of the American voter is a smaller “story” that emerges from the larger news story. The stories of some of the individual car dealers who are losing the businesses they have worked for many years to build are potential examples of the specific type of story that personalizes the larger one. If there is an element of corruption or injustice or scandal associated with the story, the more likely it is to attract and hold attention.
There is a story emerging from the bailout/takeover of GM and Chrysler regarding the closing of dealerships that has that potential of capturing the attention of the American voter. The tie between campaign contributions and dealership closures is being examined by a handful of bloggers and is beginning to attract some attention on the internet.
Bloggers Doug Ross, Joey Smith, and others are examining the list of car dealerships being closed and they are comparing it to lists of campaign donors. If it appears there is a pattern of more dealers who made contributions to Republican candidates being closed than those who contributed to Democrats, that is something voters would definitely understand. If it appears any dealers who contributed heavily to Barack Obama are being treated with preference, by being spared closure and by having their competition closed, that might even attract some attention from the traditional media.
According to those involved in the process, the decisions about which dealerships are being closed are not being made by Chrysler executives, but rather are coming from “the President's automotive task force.” It could be that any similarity (if one is found to exist) between lists of dealers contributing to Republican candidates and lists of dealerships being closed is sheer coincidence. But if such a pattern is established, whether it be by design or by chance, it will give Americans one more reason to question the unprecedented control the U.S. government is currently exercising over the private sector. That is something American voters not only “get,” but the kind of thing that might just spur them to action in the next election.
Lorie Byrd's Bio
Lorie Byrd is a stay-at-home mom from North Carolina with a passion for politics. She is a columnist for Townhall.com and a contributing editor to the Wizbang Blog.com .
Posted
05-28-2009 6:15 AM
Link to this post: