Welcome back to school, Gentle Readers...
Title: Patterns of
Recruitment (A State Chooses Its Lawmakers)
Author: Lester G. Seligman et al.
Date: 1974
Publisher: Rand McNally
ISBN: none
Length: 264 pages plus 5-page index
Quote: “The way political aspirants maneuver for position and
prominence, the ingenious tactics and propaganda…are peculiarly endemic to
the recruitment process. The electoral laws governing recruitment tell us
little about the interactions among candidates, their sponsors, opponents and
the electorate. This book concerns the interaction patterns in the recruitment
of state legislators in Oregon.”
Or, what kind of people seek positions in the state
legislature, and why? (This book was written by graduate students and their
professor, for the college library market; a somewhat awkward and verbose
literary voice is expected. If people who are neither C.S. Lewis nor Rachel
Carson write like them, the thinking seems to go, what they write isn’t academic
enough.)
To some extent the authors found what they expected to find.
State legislators needed to be fairly affluent, and the median family income
for candidates was more than twice the median for Oregon residents generally,
but above the level from which campaigning was possible, higher incomes did not
reliably predict greater success either in campaigning or in the legislature. Candidates
didn’t have to be male, and there had been some interest in adding more females
to the legislature, but the balance of the state legislature remained almost
entirely male. Candidates didn’t absolutely have
to enjoy campaigning, or do it especially well, and in some cases it may
even help if they don’t have much interest in larger political issues (since
the issues with which they deal will be mostly narrow, local ones anyway).
Candidates for office are, in theory, taking risks…but
candidates for state and local office may, the authors found, regard the
financial risk of campaigning as a strategic investment. If the majority party
in an electoral district have a qualified incumbent candidate, the minority
party’s “challenger” is extremely unlikely to win. Why do people even campaign
in this type of situation? Advertisement, the authors found. The social mores
of the period frowned on self-advertisement by the “professional” class much
more than we do now. A lawyer couldn’t expect positive results from advertising
in a newspaper or on a local radio broadcast, but could increase name
recognition, and subsequently increase business, by running as a doomed
“challenger” candidate…and in Oregon, in the 1966 election, several election
losers admitted that that was why they campaigned for office. An insurance
agent the authors identified as “one self-promoter” said, “I don’t have a
snowball’s chance of beating him…I figure every election is worth ten or twenty
policies.”
The authors found that “taxation is the perennial issue,
often the only issue” on which candidates for state and local office could even
distinguish themselves, in spite of party affiliation. However, in “an off-year
election (1966)…local influences on recruitment are more easily identified…The
issues…were…taxation, national resources, conservation and the War in Vietnam.”
Of these, property taxes remained “the salient issue,” despite the formation of
a “Save Our Beaches” group and a senatorial election expected to “become a
referendum on Vietnam policy, but [Mark] Hatfield played down the Vietnam issue
and emphasized his record as Governor,” and the candidates for state office
avoided aligning themselves closely with the U.S. Senate race.
When elections for state office were real contests, the
authors found, “Candidates…defined the contest as one that divided the
community into ‘we-they’ blocs…such as Baptists vs. Methodists, Elks vs.
Moose,” or “the people who own the stores and businesses that the ranchers use”
vs. “the ranchers,” rather than aligning closely with national political party
platforms.
Not surprisingly, some people who campaigned for office
found campaigning especially uncongenial. People with especially good
credentials, who’d been encouraged to campaign by sponsors, were not
necessarily pleased about having been “coopted.” “I’mchairman of the United
Fund, I work on the Planning Commission, I run the Elk’s Little League, I’m on
the city council,and I try to take time out from all this to keep my practice
going. then they asked me to run for the House,a s if I wasn’t doing enough
around [name of city]. I don’t know what the [expletive deleted] they want…I’m
interested in our locakl problems, but all my friends want me to go to Salem.”
Another said, “If I had known what I had to put up with, I would never have let
them talk me into running.” Another: “I can hardly wait for this campaign to be
over. I feel like I’m marking time.” Most of these highly qualified “coopted
notables,” “successful businessmen or lawyers, accustomed to the direct and
decisive discourse” didn’t like “Evasive campaign rhetoric…cloying conduct and
showmanship...and pandering to a crowd.” Most of them did win, but “All but one
of the successful coopted candidate sin 1966 withdrew in 1968, and the other
was elected to a higher state office.”
State and local officials in the United States have included
some well-known “power seeker” types, but the authors didn’t see this trait in
the current crop of Oregon legislators. “Many…seemed hesitant about seeking
office and some others were reluctant…the political aspirations were modest.”
More experienced state legislators “understandably” had even more modest
aspirations than first-time candidates. All appreciated the honor of being
backed for office, but one burst out, “I don’t need to be a legislator.”
How important, even to historians, is a study of Oregon’s
state elections in 1966? Not terribly, I suppose. I inherited this book from my
husband; it had been sent out for review, presumably by someone other than him
since it’s not about economics or diplomacy; I’ve seen no indication of the
sort of reviews it got in 1974. It was not, in any case, a bestseller or
considered terribly important even in its time. It’s not a book I’d urge every
school and public library to keep on the shelves. Nevertheless, since the
majority of correspondence this web site has received shows that most of our
respondents are interested in politics, some even on the state and local level,
as an historical document Patterns may
interest some of our readers. It may help some people decide whether to
“recruit” friends, or let themselves be “recruited,” into political office “on
the ground floor.” It may, therefore, be worth reading today.
If you want it, send $5 per book + $5 per package to either address at the very bottom of the screen. I'm sorry to report that Seligman no longer needs the $1 he'd get out of that price if this were still a Fair Trade Book. The $5 shipping charge, however, will cover at least one more book of similar size; scroll down to find Fair Trade Books to add to the package.
No comments:
Post a Comment