Hold Fire on Christine O’Donnell’s Financial Hardships

1. Introduction: a pitfall.

To attack Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell of Delaware for her financial hardships is ignorant, shortsighted, and wrong. Her money troubles are widely known. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/15/odonnell.profile/index.html To some progressive commentators, these troubles are a political opportunity of first resort.  http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2010/9/19/903213/-.html But that’s bad politics and bad policy.

2. Creating compassion for a bad candidate.

It’s is bad politics because it creates compassion for an otherwise bad candidate. If you don’t know that large numbers of our neighbors have struggled financially or are struggling now, then you need to leave the country club more often. I don’t know the statistics on this. But the householder who frets about debt is an iconic and relatable figure in popular, middle-class culture.

Not since the Great Depression have we encountered a worse economic whirlpool. Personal bankruptcies are rising. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126263231055415303.html People are losing their homes. Unemployment is painfully high. People who don't find themselves in swirling waters likely know someone who does.

So attacking O’Donnell for financial failures only makes her more like everyone else, or like everyone’s neighbor. It makes her, with her extreme positions, into someone that the ordinary Delaware voter can identify with.

3. Embracing bad policy.

Aside from poor politics, denigrating someone for financial debility is poor policy.

                      a. The old ways aren’t the best ways.

We forget our history. In centuries past, American voters had to be men of substance. For example, O’Donnell’s home state of Delaware, in 1736, required a would-be voter to prove ownership of fifty acres of land or property worth £40. http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm

An 18^th Century commentator on English law, William Blackstone, explained this property requirement. He said that the weak wills of the poor justified it:

The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.

Blackstone’s rationale implies large-scale coercion.

This property requirement disappeared in the 19^th Century. It should remain a relic.

                    b. Poverty doesn’t render unfit.

Financial struggles don’t render you unfit for office. Abraham Lincoln famously struggled in early life. His surveying equipment, horse, and saddle were seized and auctioned to pay his debts. His New Salem neighbors rescued his livelihood by buying them back and returning them to him. http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/inside.asp?pageID=13&subjectID=1

And when Lincoln arrived in Springfield to set up his law practice, he possessed no money and little personal property. He went into Joshua Speed’s store and negotiated a price for a bed and other household goods. Then he sadly explained to Speed:

"It is probably cheap enough; but I want to say that cheap as it is I have not money to pay. But if you will credit me until Christmas, and my experiment here as a lawyer is a success, I will pay you then. If I fail in that I will probably never be able to pay you at all."

Speed offered to let Lincoln sleep in his commodious bed, which Lincoln accepted, and they formed a lifelong friendship. http://www.mrlincolnandfriends.org/inside.asp?pageID=38&subjectID=2

The point is that Lincoln’s financial struggles contributed to his greatness. It irreplaceably fortified his essential empathy

                    c. Wealth doesn’t render fit.

And if poverty were to render unfit a would-be office holder, then the opposite would also be true. Financial wealth would equate to political worth. New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino reportedly is worth $150 million. But he is hardly an A-rated candidate; he has a penchant for sending pornographic and racist emails. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/17/carl.paladino/index.html.

It would be error to overcorrect and conclude that wealth disqualifies a candidate. Strong leaders like Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Michael Bloomberg refute that. The point is that wealth is wealth, and political leadership is political leadership, and they are not the same.


4. Bribery.

You might argue against candidates with financial troubles because of their vulnerability to pay-to-play politics. Two replies refute this is a modern-day reiteration of Blackstone’s warning against the weak will of the poor.

First, welcome to the modern world. Campaign contributions already win political hearts and minds.

Second, bribery isn’t a product of poverty; it’s a product of greed. Politicians recently entangled in financial scandals weren’t driven to that by their inability to pay bills, any more than politicians lately caught in sexual scandals had no other sexual outlets. Married men tumble sexually.

Instead of financial difficulties, the moving force behind political corruption lies in something John D Rockefeller said. When asked "How much money is enough?", he answered, "Just a little bit more."

Harry Truman proved that neediness need not lead to the exploitation of office. Truman left office with nothing financially to show for it. He returned to his unfashionable Missouri home because couldn’t afford better. (Presidential pensions were not enacted until 1958.) But Truman persistently rejected lucrative post-presidency financial opportunities because he refused to cheapen the presidency by cashing in on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/opinion/02iht-edjacoby.4775315.html

5. A more representative Senate.

The Senate would benefit from a poor gate-crasher into that high-end assembly.

                    a. The perspective of the poor.

People who are poor and people who have struggled have more empathy than the wealthy. If I lived on the streets, I would not assume that the well-dressed were the best source for charitable handouts, just because they had money to spare; money to spare is not the issue. I would appeal to people who looked like they struggled, because they have more empathy. Poor neighborhoods frequently are rich in mutual concern and mutual assistance in ways that richer neighborhoods are not.

I’m not saying that O’Donnell falls within this generalization; I don't know. But other hole-shoed candidates might be highly empathetic and highly qualified, and we should not bar them from office by stigmatizing poverty as a substitute for the property requirements of another age.

                      b. A recent example.

After all, Obama famously struggled early in life and for much of his adult life. When he arrived in Los Angeles to give his breakthrough speech at the 2000 Democratic convention, he tried to use his credit card at the airport, but it was declined. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0742632720080107

Obama voted against a 2005 bankruptcy bill enthusiastically endorsed by banks and credit-card companies, that made it harder for consumers to escape crushing debt. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044#name Multi-millionaire John Edwards voted for the bill. Multi-millionaire Hillary Clinton missed the vote because her husband was ill; but she voted for a substantially identical bill in 2001. http://thepage.time.com/obama-statement/

Certainly, this does not completely explain the votes of Obama, Edwards, or Clinton. But it easily might have influenced those votes.

                           c. The Senate as a rich man’s club.

The Senate historically has been known as a rich man’s club. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987485,00.html In fact, as a senator, Joe Biden was among the poorest, even though his home was worth half-a-million dollars.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/27/howard-dean/we-should-all-be-so-poor/
Someone who made the Senate a little less rich would bring a little balance.

9. Conclusion: Let’s not lob bombs at financial embarrassment

Recently, a good government group filed a complaint against O'Donnell for illegal use of campaign funds.  That might be a piece for another day.  This piece is about  piling on because of financial hardships.

O’Donnell is a target-rich candidate. So her opponent and the Democrats and their supporters don’t need to and shouldn’t lob their bombs at her financial hardships. We on the left should show restraint.