D e s e r t E x p o s u r e
June 2010
Campaign Answers, Not Ads
What we really need to know from New Mexico's next governor.
As this issue goes to press, it's impossible to know who will emerge from the June 1 primary as the candidates for New Mexico's next governor. But from what we've seen of the campaign thus far, mostly on the television airwaves, we're not flush with optimism about the prospects for a spirited and specific debate over the state's future between now and November. Most of the campaigns able to afford airtime have wallowed in generalities and postured on issues tangential to New Mexico's most pressing concerns. Voters in November have a right to expect better before they decide whom to send to Santa Fe.
For example, everyone knows New Mexico — like the nation — needs to create jobs. But "create jobs" is not a plan; it's a goal. Exactly how do candidates propose to promote job growth, which even the savviest economists concede is a tough thing to accomplish? "Cut job-killing regulations" sounds all well and good, but which regulations? Those that protect the health and safety of working men and women in New Mexico? Regulations that safeguard the environment and irreplaceable natural resources from rapacious corporations? Maybe that's not so good. Governing is full of trade-offs: We need to know which trade-offs the next governor is willing to make in order to "create jobs."
Running state government "like a business" sounds great, too, until you start thinking about it a bit. What kind of business? Enron? Goldman Sachs? Businesses, as we've seen in recent years all too vividly, are every bit as capable as government of running off the rails.
Besides, as anyone who's worked in the nonprofit sector as well as private enterprise knows, the goals of government and business are quite different. Business strives above all to deliver value to owners and shareholders. Our next governor must have a clear-eyed vision of what New Mexico's government can and should deliver to taxpayers. That vision ought to combine efficiency with compassion — a combination not necessarily found in the lessons of private enterprise.
"Cleaning up New Mexico" and "ending business as usual in Santa Fe" are likewise admirable goals, which we've championed in articles such as our in-depth look at the "Pirates of the Roundhouse" (March 2009). But we'd be far more encouraged about the prospects of such an ethical housecleaning if presented with a list of specific proposals instead of facile slogans.
At a bare minimum, New Mexico voters have a right to expect their next governor to be able to count. In one oft-aired TV commercial, a candidate vowed to have "a single focus" — namely, "cleaning up New Mexico and getting people back to work." Call us nitpickers, but that's two focuses.
We're similarly unimpressed by tough talk about patrolling the US-Mexican border and cracking down on drug lords. No question that border security and the spillover of drug-related violence are serious concerns, especially for those of us in the southern part of the state — as we pointed out last month in our "The Nightmare Next Door" report. But this is at least as much a federal as a state challenge, and we're dubious about how much the governor can really affect this complex issue — or how relevant prosecutorial experience is to being the state's chief executive.
Besides, until the economy significantly rebounds and boosts tax revenues in the bargain, the dominant issue for New Mexico's next governor will be balancing the state's books. How many jobs can the governor really generate? We're skeptical. What can the governor do about the border besides sending the National Guard (again)? But the state budget, now that's something the governor really can and must tackle.
Voters have the right to expect specific answers from both parties' candidates about what they'd cut and what taxes they would and wouldn't raise. And the numbers must add up. Vowing not to raise taxes without confessing to cuts in popular programs — including education — simply won't wash. Vague promises about "eliminating waste" are just a mealy-mouthed way to avoid talking about the hard choices New Mexico, like most states, faces in the next few years.
How will you increase revenue? What are you willing to cut? Those are the questions that whoever gets nominated to run for governor must be prepared to answer. The answers won't be easy to hear — not if they're honest — and voters must do their part by rewarding those who offer straight talk instead of comforting double-talk. If we vote for a candidate who tells us what we want to hear instead of what must be done, we have only ourselves to blame when reality bites at the next legislative session.
Governing New Mexico is not as easy as shooting a TV commercial. Whatever a candidate may have accomplished in his or her past — heroic service as a veteran, running a business, prosecuting drug henchmen, even serving in state government — pales in relevance beside the need for specific, hard-headed answers about the state's future.
So when the dust from the primary settles and the next barrage of TV commercials begins, do yourself and the state a favor: Don't pick a governor the way you might be persuaded to try a new brand of soap.
Actually, it's more like those prescription-drug commercials that pound viewers around the nightly news (viewers of TV news must be more sickly than most): The benefits sound great, but then they start listing all the side effects. Maybe political ads should similarly be required to disclose the fine print: "This candidate's promises may result in tax increases, cuts in services to the poor and layoffs of teachers." "The ability to 'create jobs' has not been demonstrated by independent testing." Or just: "Side effects of electing this person governor may include headaches, frustration and inability to control rage during legislative sessions."
At least then we'd know what we're "buying."
David A. Fryxell is editor of Desert Exposure.