Dawidziak: Campaign colored by the economy

By the time you read this, most if not all the results will be in for the local elections, and the winners and losers should be known. But since I don't have the gift of prophecy as I write this on Tuesday, in lieu of commenting on the results, I'd like to take a look back at how the campaigns were conducted. And let's look ahead and see what implications this year's political tactics may have for next year's governing and campaigning.

What started as one of the quietest and most genteel campaign seasons in a long time quickly intensified -- both in decibel levels and malevolence of attacks. The wave crashed down in the last three weeks of the campaign.

Prime time for political campaigns is the roughly 60 days between Labor Day and Election Day. That's when candidates unleash a torrent of television, radio and direct mail advertising. But this year, a scarcity of contribution dollars was a side effect of the sluggish economy. With the notable exception of Democratic Suffolk County executive candidate Steve Bellone, most candidates found donations to their campaign coffers hard to come by.

So with the exception of Bellone, who mostly kept his message focused on the positive aspects of his record and vision, things were eerily calm for most of this year's campaign season. TVs and radios were oddly devoid of political ads, and mailboxes were uncharacteristically empty.

All that changed about three weeks ago. Conventional wisdom in politics is that the most effective dollars are those spent closest to Election Day. If you can sustain only a three- week burn rate, then you don't start spending before that. With 21 days to go, most of the campaigns let all the arrows fly. Suddenly it looked and sounded like a typical election season.

Not surprisingly, the shortened duration of the exchange did nothing to raise the tenor or intelligence of the debate. A review of this year's mailings and ads reveals the typical short-on-substance, high-on-vitriol messages. The No. 1 claim by any given candidate was that he or she either has or will cut taxes. The No. 1 attack on any given opponent was that he or she either has or will raise taxes.

Overused slogans like "tax and spend liberal" were dusted off. Many of the attacks were either misleading or downright false. For example, several campaigns claimed opponents had raised taxes while serving on school boards, even though spending always increases due to state mandates and voters approve budgets -- a deceptive and disingenuous charge, at best.

Calling a candidate a "career politician" was also a popular attack this year. It seems we've gotten to the point where many deem public service a bad thing.

Most of the campaign advertising, from both sides, played to the parties' bases. While it's true you have to excite base voters to get them to the polls, most of these tactics are lost on the moderate swing voters who actually decide the election. That's a shame. Unity of purpose is demanded if we are going to find solutions to the problems we're facing as a region and a country.

The kind of campaigning that was done this year tends to divide and solidify extremist political attitudes. Even worse, it carries over into the halls of government. Expect the fanatics to dominate the debate, particularly on taxes. And it's likely that the major parties will play to their bases in next year's state and federal campaigns, too.

Still, we can hope that politicians will try to elevate their games and move toward more cooperative action. It might seem naive, but the times demand it, Long Island needs it and the country deserves it.

Michael Dawidziak is a political consultant and pollster.