TIME After TIME

Last week I printed the first half of  a "Best of/Worst of" series of articles.  My winner for "Worst Political Move of the Year" needs to be a full post.  You will recall the debacle that was the TIME initiative.  That was the group that attempted to put a sales tax increase on the ballot in an effort build more freeways...and light rail, elk crossings and a hodge podge of stuff to buy off a variety of interest groups. 

The group had the full backing of Governor Napolitano and through various strong arm tactics, managed to raise over a million dollars...and then didn't even manage to qualify for the ballot. 

This year, many of the same players are at it again and have decided to attack the legislature for gasp...funding health care and education instead of additional freeway construction.  Here's a copy of the Commercial.

 The reason that the commercial--and indeed, the entire ill conceived project--wins my "Worst Political Move of the Year Award" is not that the commercial plays hardball.  The project wins because it  violates so many fundamental principles of political strategy. 

March of Folly

This Principle is from a book by Barbara Tuchman in which she examines a variety of political debacles--such as Vietnam--and points out that the leaders behind those policies continued even though it was obvious that they couldn't reach their final objective.

In the case of the "We Build" coalition, the original plan was to carpet bomb the legislature with negative ads about the lack of freeway funding and then go directly to voters and ask them to vote for an extension of the sales tax.  That plan was fatally flawed from the beginning because voters certainly aren't going to fund TWO separate increases in the sales tax on the same ballot...and they will obviously support education and health care over freeway construction. 

In addition to being impossible, the original plan of asking voters to approve a tax increase for freeways was really expensive.  It would have taken at least $4 million to mount a credible campaign and the few grown ups who were asked to be part of the coalition (namely the Arizona Rock Products Association) soon dropped out.

That meant the original group (the Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors) only had enough money for the initial poll and the first round of TV Ads.  That's when they should have pulled the plug. After all, if you can't go to the ballot, why run the commercials?  At that point, they literally had no goal.

But they ran the commercials anyway--think The Bay of Pigs or Vietnam.  The Contractors ran the commercials even though their original goal was no longer attainable.  That's the very definition of the March of Folly.

The Prince.

The next fundamental political rule comes from Machiavelli's The Prince.  If you strike a king, you must kill him.

What's the use of running a couple hundred thousand dollars of ads that are critical of the Legislature?  So the legislature chose to fund health care and education over freeways during the downturn.  Does the construction industry think that it is more powerful than the health care or education lobby?  Does it think that voters would have tolerated additional education cuts in order to build freeways--especially at a time when the overall economy and the traffic associated with it was down?

The Construction industry sacrificed its relationship with the Republicans in the legislature and got nothing in return.  Do they think that the Democrats would have made different choices? 

If you want to see the extent of the damage, check out what Speaker Tobin said at the Arizona Chamber Lunch last Friday.  The Arizona Capitol Times pointed out that the Speaker was critical of the Press and the Democrats.  Actually, the Speaker also singled one other group out for criticism.  When the speaker chastised those who were critical of his priorities, he specifically refered to his "friends" at the Associated General Contractors.  In this context, Tobin said "Friends" but it was clear that he had a different  F word in mind.  Tobin made it clear to the 1,000 people in the room that the Contractors had burned the bridge and they weren't going to be able to rebuild it. 

Anna and the King

Finally, the Contractors failed the "Anna and the King Test."  You may recall the movie, based on the King and I.  In one key scene, the King is about to execute two people for a petty crime and Anna confronts him publicly and demands that he not kill them.  He later tells her privately that now he HAS to kill them.

The General Contractors--and their hapless leader David Martin--have publicly demanded that the Legislature fund HURF over other priorities.   There's a surplus this year and how much of it do you think will go to HURF?  Zero.  Even if the legislature wants to fund HURF, they will have to make it very clear that they are funding it despite the antics of the Keystone Cops at AGC. 

So there you have it.  AGC launched the campaign even after they knew they didn't have enough money to finish it.  They sacrificed their relationship with the Legislature for no gain, and publicly demanded funding that they probably would have received anyway--and now it's impossible for the Legislature to comply. 

It's a bit too early to see, but the "We Build" coalition, may win the award for worst political move of the Decade.

Comments

[BobH]

Thanks for bringing up March of Folly -- one of my all-time favorite books and one that isn't as well-known as it deserves to be. The sections on British stupidity before and during the American Revolution and the Catholic hierarchy's blindness in the years leading up to the Reformation are even better than the Vietnam section.

[Barry M. Aarons]

In my more than 40 years in the lobbying business I have never seen the "sharp stick in the eye" approach succeed. On the other hand I have always seen the "oh yeah, well we'll show you approach" hold almost every time!

[M. Anthony Lewis]

Your comments on the AGC are right on. A bad political move amoung several others.