Watch out for the spin
by Kai Hagen
November 10, 2005
’Tis the season.
I’m not referring to the Christmas season, which seems to have gotten started as well.
I’m referring to the spin season, the inevitable post-election period of pronouncements about what an election really means, what voters are really thinking, and — no matter what actually happened — why ‘‘our” side is the real winner and ‘‘your” side isn’t.
Keep in mind, when it comes to spin, the spinners are not just speaking for the two major parties. Spin comes from outside the parties, many distinct sub-groups within the parties, smaller third parties, the ‘‘business community” and various other interest groups, you name it.
A polite description of spin might consider it a form of public relations, though a cynic might describe it as propaganda.
However one might describe it, it’s fair to say that the spinners out there are trying to interpret the election in a way that advances their specific political agenda, or, if that’s too much of a stretch, to minimize the political downside of a disappointing loss. Either a beginning to the next offensive, on the one hand, or a sort of damage control on the other.
One thing for sure, to be effective, spin has to be believable and persuasive, even if only to the target audience. That requires all but the most artful spinner to connect their spin, if only barely, to an indisputable or, at least, widely accepted ‘‘fact” or two. Done well, the facts at the foundation lend credibility to the spin constructed on top of them.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m too much of a political junkie myself to advocate an end to spin. That would be tilting at windmills, anyway. And besides, I’m as likely as anyone to engage in the lively discussions and debate that, well, spin-off the spin.
As with some other activities — such as watching your favorite sports teams — the key to enjoying spin is simple: Don’t take it too seriously!
Truth is, it’s hard to take spin seriously if you’ve been paying attention for a while, because, like watching post-game interviews with the players on your favorite teams, you hear the same thing over and over again, from different players, season after season, with only slight variations.
In other words, most of it is completely predictable.
For instance, it wasn’t surprising that before election night was over in Frederick last week, some inescapably partisan officials of the state Republican party were trying to spin the election of Jeff Holtzinger as reflecting a sea change in state politics.
Now, really, Republican or Democrat, how can anyone take that seriously?
In that situation, I guess the only fact needed to support the spin was that Mr. Holtzinger ran as a Republican. Perhaps it’s just me, but that seems like an awfully flimsy foundation for the argument this election indicates a substantial shift, a wave, if you will, that is washing over the entire state.
If nothing else, you have to be impressed that someone could make that assertion with a straight face.
You have to wonder if those making such comments actually believe them, or if, like a paid advertising agency, they simply have to make them, whether they believe them or not?
In order to believe it, you’d have to be unaware of — or outright ignore — all sorts of other possible spin, and a few facts.
Among other things, for example, how does that jive with the results of the election for alderman?
Oops.
And there’s counter spin that says the election swung to Holtzinger because incumbent Mayor Jennifer Dougherty and challenger Ron Young beat up on each other in the primary. There’s spin that insists that wouldn’t have mattered, if only Dougherty had been willing to be a ‘‘good Democrat” and endorse Young after her defeat in the primary. Related spin out there blames the outgoing mayor for quietly campaigning against Young.
Other spin says some voters were so sure Young would win — based on all the yard signs, I guess — that they didn’t bother to get to the polls themselves. And still more spin ascribes Young’s loss to various baggage left over from his many years as mayor.
And so it goes.
Of course, I have no idea how much any or all of those things factored into the result. Some truth to all of them, maybe?
But in the spirit of the season, I’ll venture to offer up one more spin for you: Overall, regardless of political party, in the elections for mayor and five aldermen, candidates who were perceived as most closely associated with, or most well funded by, developers did not do well, with bonus points (votes) going to candidates who clearly supported a strong adequate public facilities ordinance.
Oops. I guess that wouldn’t apply to the Democratic mayoral primary.
So much for that theory.
Or, perhaps, there’s at least some truth to it?
WHY I'M VOTING FOR KAI!
Alan Feinberg
Frederick
I've known Kai ever since we began crossing paths at all the odd places and events that people go to "fix" things in the community. Kai is much more focused on actually sitting through endless, boring public meetings than I, since I do not have that kind of patience. Thank goodness for Kai. I'm a licensed architect, certified planner, urban designer, mediator, and now, principally an implementer of all that I've learned -- a different...
More >>