I had the opportunity to go to the Nels Ackerson campaign’s kick off event at Purdue’s Pfendler Hall. Mr. Ackerson chose the site because Prof. Pfendler was apparently his mentor in years past. It was a nice site for a campaign event — with the idea weather, pretty much anyplace would have been good — except that the buses and occasional loud truck that rolled by tended to drown out the speakers.
Ackerson has the endorsements of a couple of Indiana’s biggest Democratic guns – Birch Bayh and Lee Hamilton.
I didn’t take notes and memories are fallible, but I some of the campaign themes that struck me are:
- An intent to be bipartisan — presumably not the Grover Norquist date rape brand of bipartisanship. He acknowledged friends, supporters, and family members in the crowd, one of whom was his Aunt who is in her 90s and is apparently mildly disappointed in his choice of political parties. He made clear, however, he was seeking the support of fair-minded Republicans in the district. While taking questions from the gallery, he was asked about how he was different from his likely opponent, Steve Buyer. Ackerson thought one of the most significant differences was that Buyer was a party-line kind of guy. I’m sure party leaders don’t really like the idea of freshmen legislators with an independent streak, but I suspect that if it means Democratic representation from Indiana’s 4th District, Democratic leadership will tolerate some maverick votes from Mr. Ackerson where his position differs from the party line.
- A recognition that citizens have become or are becoming detached and disillusioned with their government. This might be a standard theme for challengers attempting to motivate potential followers, but that doesn’t make it untrue. Government is (or ought to be) nothing more or less than us. These are just folks who we elect from our midst to represent our interests. When we stop paying attention or stop thinking we can influence our representation, I think our representatives start thinking the same thing and stray from our best interests.
- An interesting observation that our government has a responsibility to protect our freedoms, including our freedom to be free of government interference where it is inappropriate.
- While he did not claim to be the greatest expert on the subject, the fact is that Ackerson spent 3 years living and working in the Middle East and, therefore, has a much better understanding of the region than a lot of other politicians who may spend 2 or 3 days there before coming back and telling everybody what we ought to do over there.
Update The campaign speech received some cursory print coverage. The Journal and Courier has a brief article here, and WLFI has the story here. Not a whole lot in the articles, mainly just mention of Mr. Ackerson’s intent to avoid partisanship.
Ackerman is also strong on protecting individual property rights, whether it is corporations or government trying to interfere with them. He should have broad appeal to Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians who still find individual rights to be important.
Whoops. I meant Ackerson, not Ackerman (the last name of one of my law school roommates).
Doug: Did he mention anything about restoring Congress to its rightful place as a coequal branch of government? Whether you are independent or favor a particular political party, all should agree that the executive branch has overstepped its constitutional bounds in the past 15 to 20 years. The Congress, hopelessly locked in partinship and weighed down by scandal, has lost its institutional bearings. Ackerson should question what Buyer has done about this erosion of congressional power, and tell us what he would do differently.
I don’t recall that coming up specifically. But you certainly raise an important point. Our system of government is designed such that, if one branch goes off the rails, the others should give it a cordial nudge and then a forceful push if necessary.
One would hope that this corrective action is done for the noblest of reasons, but that’s not really what Madison, et al, were counting on. They figured each branch grabbing power for itself would hold the others in check. For the past several years, Congress has been little more than a lapdog for the Bush administration.
Congress needs to reassert its prerogatives.
My high school history teacher would occasionally put three circles of different sizes up on the blackboard by way of indicating how expansion of one branch of government has coincided with a decrease in other branches. The Civil War, for example, was a time when the President’s circle was pretty huge. However, that was followed by Reconstruction where Congress flexed its muscles and reasserted itself to the point of impeaching Johnson over cabinet appointments.
Anyway, that’s a great question. I think I’ll pass it along and see if I get a response.