Adaptation & Unification: Keys to Political Survival

With every election the final outcome is not the election itself, but the reaction to it. The winner proves his/her grace as easily as speaking kindly and eliminating boastful "I told you so's" and rubbing remarks. Too often not done, and too often ignored by constituents ready to break down their opponents "goal post" rather than pass along a gentle "well done--a battle well fought! I'm glad that's over, aren't you?!" condolences. Or better yet, congratulations for stepping into the ring in the first place are left absent as opponents walk, backs turned away, as if people never counted in the first place.

To the looser, grace is shown in how tactfully a congratulations and admission that the better person may have won is done. Or at least, to admit that the better person won even if the looser doesn't really believe it. It is far better for this contender to prove his/her chivalry and poise under pressure than that he or she has been wronged. A giant task indeed--one of which only the best of candidates has proven to triumph over these days! Increasingly, we see an embattled candidate lay blame for campaign miscalculations, downright error, or frankly, personal inadequacies compared to the opponent, by bringing up all kinds of travesties heaped upon them by their opponent or his/her supporters, the media, circumstances, even God. Though there are plenty of elections filled with lies, misinformation, and downright slander against an opponent, when the battle is over, the loser must show him/herself to be above the fray.

The simple truth is this: Great leaders are good losers. They are not prone to whining but pick themselves up and learn from the experience. They take that new-found knowledge with them to their next election adventure. It is what separates the poor, average and the truly great among us.

To complicate feelings about elections and their results, are the outcomes of elections won by newcomers defeating incumbents--even incumbents with strong, loyal supporters. Such was the case with the race between Chris Cannon and Jason Chaffetz for US House of Representatives for the 3rd District of Utah. The fact that Chris lost is history to Cannon. He has gone on to develop projects for which he as a Congressman saw a need and longed to do, but could not for lack of time and commitment. His opportunities have skyrocketed.

To the constituency, however, the rubble remains. Chaffetz has yet to gain real support and trust among vast majorities of the population of his district. Why? Consider that the primary election is in June. A weird, off beat and frankly ridiculous month to consider a vote from the populous. History is showing that this choice is beneficial to the offbeat election, the odd referendum and bond issues, that might otherwise not be passed, or conversely should be passed. Consider the race again between Cannon and Chaffetz: Chaffetz did indeed receive 60% of the vote in that June Primary election. An enormous, lopsided win. But it was 60% of 8% of registered, eligible voters! This is hardly a mandate. The fact is, those who took for granted the outcome didn't come out to vote. Many were elsewhere--Disneyland! We do not know what the real vote would be because those voters never showed up.

But the reaction to the outcome of an election is telling. In a recent local election for a women's group within the 3rd District, one of the candidates running for President of the group was very vocal about her involvement with the Chaffetz campaign, and her continued support for him. It was in her literature as well as her speeches. She lost by about a 20% margin to the other candidate, despite heavily recruiting her own supporters. Direct feedback, of which yours truly witnessed, was, bluntly put, that she was a Chaffetz supporter.

But the constituency also has a responsibility to the final outcome of an election as well as those directly involved in the candidacies. Our reaction can either destroy our communities with crippling poison that warps our perception and keeps us from being productive, or it can produce growth in adversity--sunshine after a storm you might say. Even heavy manure will yield a hardy and abundant bouquet in the garden, if one is willing to look for what might be cultivated. The trick is to not over fertilize with manure, right? Doing that will burn what might otherwise have grown. In that scenario, only starting anew will due.

Perhaps that might be where many feel the 3rd District of Utah is. The field was so badly burned that only starting over will due. If so, then start anew we must. The fact is, the outcome of the election resulted in Chaffetz becoming the next Congressman. Starting anew means those who opposed Chaffetz must accept him as their Congressman. Those that supported him must get off their high-horse and work with those who have concerns. To do otherwise will result in our own 3rd District crippling.

I choose not to make matters worse. While I disagreed with many statements Chaffetz made during his campaign--that I verified as incorrect via the LOC, and which he has yet to retract, I don't have to make matter worse, now that he is my Congressman. I can start anew. Starting with him as my Congressman--not a candidate--I can expect him to rise to the occasion. I can and will use my him as my voice--because he is. Likewise it would be prudent wisdom for all constituents--whether they cared for Chaffetz as a candidate or not to do the same.

Are we willing to sabotage our district's well-being to see Chaffetz flounder? To ignore our conduit to the Federal Government because we believe him not to be the best choice will not serve us, and is tantamount to the candidate who pitches a fit after loosing an election by claiming forever he/she is the victim. Those in the 3rd District who felt victimized by a poor election must rise anew. We cannot be self appointed victims for the next two years. If we do our part as an active citizenry and constituency, Chaffetz's failure, should that happen, will be solely his own. Then, and only then can our adaptation to the political situation in which we find ourselves work to our benefit.

Unification does not mean agreeing upon any particular thought, necessarily. It does mean that we must have the same end goal: Success is the same as survival in politics. The 3rd District is in continual need of Federal dollars for infrastructure; Protection against oppressive legislation is a constant need. Utah's oil shale, school trust lands, wilderness, family values are all in need of constant support and vigilance. We, as a constituency, MUST be united in our efforts to improve and protect Utah. We must raise our voices and submit our own contributions.

Then what ever failings Chaffetz has will be his alone. But whatever we as a District choose to work as a united team to enhance will be ours together--as a District.

And of course, the great leader would be prudent to acknowledge the hand of all those who worked toward success. For great leaders are good losers and gracious winners.