Raise the quality of campaigning

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

At one time, Minnesota's gubernatorial campaigns were marked by well-advertised public events where one could meet the candidates. There were big, open-air rallies, flurries of detailed policy papers on important issues facing local voters, and live debates during which candidates would square off to show prospective voters how well they could think on their feet.

Alas, those days — which weren't long ago — are becoming a thing of the past. In this election cycle, debates are scarce — especially at the highest levels. Scheduled events are hard to come by, and tweets and attack ads have replaced detailed policy papers.

DFL Gov. Tim Walz last shared a stage with GOP challenger Scott Jensen in August at Farmfest. The two took questions but have had no face-to-face interaction since then. They have agreed to just two more debates, and for the first time in decades there will be no televised, statewide debate to close out the campaign season. That led veteran broadcaster Cathy Wurzer to tweet: "Our longstanding tradition on @tptAlmanac of having the last gubernatorial debate was upended" when Walz would not agree to appear with Jensen. "Not a good trend," she wrote.

It's not just the governor's race, and it's not just Minnesota. In some states, in many races, there will be no debates at all. That's unfortunate. Debates offer a window into how candidates act in unscripted, often tense situations.

Equally disturbing is the overall lack of substantive plans and discussions of fundamental local issues. Star Tribune Editorial Board members remember poring over such detailed proposals in races past. Often called "white papers," they laid out, with some specificity, how candidates would deliver on their proposals — not just with brief, canned talking points, but in plans with numbers. Journalists would go over them and, yes, ask tough, often uncomfortable questions. Challengers would be right there to seize on any perceived weaknesses in the proposals.

So what happened? Lots of things. Voters were said to be bored by policy talk. Social media has allowed candidates to reach masses of people on their terms without messy, uncontrolled events that could produce the dreaded campaign gaffe or misstep.

Candidates have become wary of chance encounters when everyone has a cellphone camera in their pocket. Regrettably, cycle after cycle of getting relentlessly hammered for their proposals has taught candidates that it was easier to do without public interaction, and they have incurred few consequences for retreating.

"It's a terrible development," said Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota and a longtime campaign watcher. Candidates, Jacobs told an editorial writer, "are seeing the cost of doing live debates and other public forums, and they see far more downside than benefit."

Ditto with detailed policy positions. "We're looking at an increasingly vacuous type of campaigning," he said. "They do short press conferences on narrow sets of issues. If one guy came out for planting flowers to beautify the road, there would be some criticism. Where's the gain?"

The solution lies partly with voters. "Something fundamental has to happen," Jacobs said. "Voters need to demand vastly more coverage of public policy issues. We need to place more value on that. Let's put candidates' feet to the fire for being unclear or for not taking actual positions." Local and state issues too often take a backseat to pre-tested national hot buttons. When candidates are courageous enough to come out with actual proposals that have details and numbers, they should get some credit along with the critiques.

For those who don't take public financing, Jacobs said, "we need to ratchet up the shaming element. It's shameful to run a campaign and not give details and instead push out this pablum."

Campaigns, for all their flaws, are a necessary component of how ordinary Americans decide how to choose who governs them. Let's set the bar higher.