Yesterday’s primary election in Ohio not only resulted in a win for Mitt Romney, it also ended (for now, at least) the congressional career of Dennis Kucinich. Fellow Representative Marcy Kaptur trounced Kucinich in the Democratic primary in a redrawn district.
Kucinich blamed his defeat on a negative campaign by Kaptur. Perhaps — but it seems equally plausible that those who voted overwhelmingly for Kaptur saw Kucinich as a publicity hound who wasn’t a very effective Congressman. He grabbed headlines with his quixotic runs for President and strident anti-war views, to say nothjng of his silly dental injury lawsuit, but did he really have a positive impact for his district?
The national press has expressed wistful regret at Kucinich’s defeat; they depict it as part of a process by which Congress has shed its colorful characters and become increasingly homogenized. The media loved Kucinich because he was good copy. Voters, however, aren’t so much interested in representatives who are great at getting publicity as they are in finding someone who will produce for them back home. The voters in Ohio’s new 9th District obviously concluded that Kaptur was better suited to that task than Kucinich. Who can blame them?
I also don’t understand the point of political and quasi-political bumper stickers. Are they supposed to just make people who are like-minded feel better, because the bumper stickers show that others share their views and aren’t afraid to advertise that fact publicly? Or, are they supposed to help wavering people make their final decision through the weight of views expressed on the bumpers that happen to be on that section of road at that time?
Of all the bumper stickers I’ve seen recently, the one that I find the most puzzling is the “Coexist” sticker on which the letters are replaced by different symbols. Is the message that we should coexist? If so, don’t the religions all coexist already, as evidenced by the fact that their symbols are sufficiently well-known to make it onto an insipid, mass-produced bumper sticker? Or, is the message that we should coexist better — by, perhaps, not slaughtering or slandering people of different religious beliefs? If it is the latter, do we really think that a drive-by glance at someone’s rear bumper is going to convert a religious bigot into a thoughtful proponent of tolerance?
