Home  |  Out & About  |  Dining  |  Events  |  Singles  |  Classifieds  |  Archive  |  Advertising

THE RETURN OF THE INDEPENDENT

By Dave Dempsey

That stunned look you saw in the eyes of Governor John Engler, 23 Republican state senators, and most of the Republican members of the State House after the February 22 Presidential primary was not just the shock of defeat. It was the fear of the past, and what might be to come.

John McCain’s victory, cobbled together with the help of Democratic and Independent votes as well as a smattering of Republicans, may have signaled that Michigan is returning to its post-World War II traditions of political independence. In fact, that tradition may never have died. Like grass under winter snow, it may simply have gone dormant due to lack of light and warmth.

In considering this proposition, it’s important to remember that the modern Michigan politician most frustrating to the Democratic Party establishment has been not John Engler, but William Milliken. Looking back, Democrats like to heave a sigh about the good old days when they could reason with, and often agree with, the Milliken style of governance. Milliken is now regarded as the best environmental governor Michigan ever had, a champion of public education, racial tolerance, and the equality of women - all values Democrats like to claim for themselves.

But during his 13-year rule from 1969 to 1982, they took their best shot at defeating him, arguing that with control of the governor’s office as well as the Legislature, they could deliver on the Party’s promises of an activist, progressive government. Michigan voters rejected that argument, responding as much to Milliken’s freedom from dogma as to the idea of divided control of the political spoils.

It’s become fashionable since the rise of Engler in 1990 to declare the era of moderation in Michigan politics dead. And that may be right - there are still no demonstrators parading around our streets, clamoring for middle-of-the-road solutions to our problems. Milliken, however, may not have represented moderation to voters as much as independence.

What’s the difference? Simply this: many voters prefer to support a candidate they believe is controlled neither by inflexible party doctrine nor by special interests, be they corporate favor-seekers or union leaders. Michigan voters have time and again cast ballots for men and women who seemed capable of making their own judgments about right and wrong, rather than consulting with bosses who would tell them what to do.

Engler doesn’t get that. He reminds me of the rooster who crowed just before dawn and thought he made the sun come up. Have Michigan voters endorsed his bully-boy style of running the state, a right-wing attack on public institutions and an amassing of wealth by those who are already richest? Not at all. They’ve chosen him three times as governor because of the weakness of his opponents.

They chose him in 1990 because the incumbent Democratic governor ran a flaccid, uninspiring campaign based on the premise that he deserved a third term. They chose him in 1994 over a liberal Democratic challenger who frankly owed his primary win to labor support and who had no idea of why he wanted to be governor. They chose him in 1998 over a fruitcake.

This is not to denigrate Engler’s skill in running government itself. Like his policies or not, one has to concede that he is a master of public administration, extending the powers of the governor deep into the remotest bureaucracy. He gets his way once he is elected because he is good at maneuvering the levers of power.

But John McCain is a rebuke to the Engler style of electoral politics, as opposed to government operation. His appeal is based in large part on his repudiation of Washington’s power brokers, his willingness to defy them by making genuine campaign reform a central plank of his platform. It is also based on character - a strength Milliken also possessed. Don’t forget that Milliken served in World War II and was wounded in action, returning home to build a career of public service when he could have counted his fortune from a family retailing business.

The choice couldn’t have been clearer in the Michigan Presidential primary, and George W. Bush and Engler helped make it so. By lining up so many of his fellow governors in advance to endorse Bush, by collaring almost every state Republican office holder in Michigan to support him, by spurning McCain when he visited the state, Engler sent the not-so-subliminal message that the Republican bosses had no use for the challenger. Bush, he was telling Michiganians, was far more controllable. It was precisely the wrong message for the times.

In fact, McCain is no moderate. His record on reproductive choice, gun ownership, the environment, and the military is not far left of Pat Robertson. And many of the moderates and even liberals who voted for him in the Michigan primary know it.

Critics, though, are wrong to think that this would clearly work against him in a general election. McCain implies with his actions, if not his words, that he will make up his own mind if he becomes President. In truth, if he did move into the White House circumstances would often force him to work with Congressional leaders and other power centers to get things done - a point which his independent supporters are probably willing to concede. But on a matter of do-or-die principle he would probably follow his own conscience.

Michigan Democrats would be foolish to gloat long over Engler’s setback in the Presidential primary. For one thing, he will remain governor for almost three more years. If Bush had won Michigan on his way to the Presidency, Engler had a good shot at following him there. Now it appears he will serve out his third term.

But there is a more disturbing lesson for Engler’s opponents. If Michigan voters are once again casting ballots for candidates who are independent in character and style if not in party affiliation, how can the Democratic Party regain some piece of power in Lansing? By finding acolytes who will humbly bow to the wishes of party leadership? Hardly. They will have to do what is hardest for any organization to do - they will have to find candidates with appeal that is based on their character and thoughtfulness, rather than their willingness to follow instructions.

Perhaps Engler’s most insidious effect on Michigan politics has been to polarize. He has so angered his opposition that it has retreated into the opposite corner and begun to reflect his own most strident self. Democrats want back in so badly they are willing to use the methods and styles they think got Engler where he is.

That won’t work. The only Democrat to win a major office in the 1998 Michigan election was Jennifer Granholm, the Attorney General. The mere fact of her gender no doubt convinced many voters she would be independent of the good old boys. Her intelligence didn’t hurt, either. Granholm seems fully capable of exercising her own brain cells without being guided by the instructions of party leaders.

While McCain’s win did not exactly make Engler’s day, his enemies shouldn’t use it to comfort themselves. Voters were trying to tell both parties they want people of decency and independence, not necessarily moderate Bill Clinton clones, to run the government for them. If that message gets through, then we’ve all won because of what happened February 22 in Michigan.