Missoula News

The Human Landscape / Column by Courtney Lowery

Flattops and Farmers: How Personality Plays in Montana’s Tester v. Burns Race

By Courtney Lowery, 6-29-06

Sen. Max Baucus, although not usually the beacon of quotability, said something very interesting and rather heartfelt at a rally in Missoula two weeks ago for senate candidate Jon Tester:

"It comes down to the values of the people who represent us back there. He's genuine; he's the real deal. That is so important when issues come up."

And perhaps he's right. If the last few weeks of the U.S. Senate race between Tester and Sen. Conrad Burns are any indication, the values, the heritage, the trustworthiness in a candidate are important -- especially here in Montana. (Otherwise, neither candidate would be spending so much on establishing it.) As Craig Wilson, pollster and professor of politics at Montana State University-Billings says, personality can be "more important than the party label" here.

In general, personality is always important in politics, Wilson says, but "probably in Montana, it's more important than in other states."

I like to think we're an independent lot here -- pragmatic, thoughtful voters who cast ballots from gut reactions, not knee-jerk ones.

But how important IS a haircut? (The whole flattop flap, by the way, has been taken "as far as it can go," Wilson says.)

How important is heritage? (Conrad Burns was ready to deflect the jabs about him being from Missouri at Sunday's debate, saying, "Jon, I got here as fast as I could.")

How about a candidate's ties to lobbyists (Abramoff in Conrad Burns' case) or other politicians (Teddy Kennedy or Chuck Schumer? in Tester's case)?

As this race develops the issue of character is intensified by the personalities involved, Wilson says. A race involving Max Baucus just wouldn't be as interesting. Nor, for that matter, is the Denny Rehberg vs. Monica Lindeen race. Nothing against any of these folks, but they just aren't as magnetic as either Tester or Burns. We're all glued to this race more than any other race because, yes, perhaps there is more at stake, but also, it's just a better story. It's about personality and character and that is why we're excited about it -- and why we connect with it. And, that's a good thing. It's a tired idea, I know, but the personal really is political.

Several times on New West, I've been taken to task for paying too much attention to character. I'm guilty of that. The thing is, I'm attracted, both journalistically and personally to people first and policy second. I realize some might see that as a weakness in either or both aspects of my life, but I know full well that I'm not the only one out there who cares about character. And, I do think in some ways, it makes me better in both parts of my life. When I interview people, I connect with them. And, because I'm incredibly empathetic (to a fault really), I'm able to see both sides of a story. I'm only able to do that, however, if I make that connection and if I trust the person telling the story.

In this particular story, I've always had access to Tester, so I've connected with him. I've had some access to Burns, but not enough to look him in the eye and really see what he's made of.

It's the policy and personality where I'm torn in all of this. I just don't know how much weight to give either. I like Jon Tester as a person. He represents the slice of Montana I care most about: rural Montana. He comes from a background similar to mine. He speaks my language and frankly, reminds me of a little of my Dad, only bigger and more eloquent. Naturally then, I'm drawn to him as a journalist and as a citizen. On the other hand, I honestly see that Conrad Burns has done some good things in this state. For one, he brings good chunks of change back to small towns -- for things like broadband and bridges and roads and sewer infrastructure and small-town airports. While this is partially grounds for Tester to say during the debate that Burns spends like "a drunken sailor," in D.C., it can make a big difference in Montana communities.

"What back there looks like pork, back home it's more like bringing home the bacon," Wilson says.

I have no doubt Tester would do the same, and that rural Montana would be at the forefront of his mind while in D.C. But, he won't have the seniority right off the bat and for better or worse, the connections.

Seniority, after all, is what this week helped Sen. Burns get a provision in the Interior Appropriations Bill that would prevent all new drilling leases on the Rocky Mountain Front. Granted, the move might be moot by the time the bill runs through each committee, conference committee and both houses. And, it might just be a savvy political move meant to appeal to a base of voters Tester is faring very well with. But the bottom line is, he did it -- and that will bode extremely well across the state. The Front is one of those issues Montanans -- across all spectrums -- have attached themselves to.

This is where Burns shines. He's never going to touch Tester on character. While there's no way of telling how the Abramoff scandal will affect Burns in the long run, it's done enough damage to put Burns too far behind Tester to catch up in the morality race. His campaign tried, out of the chute, to break down Tester's character appeal by saying he's tied to east-coast liberals (they're still trying that, by the way. Hence the Shumer reference above). It would be a stretch to say it's backfired, but it is pretty darn close. Using Liddy Dole to talk about what Montana needs just doesn't fly here.

What Burns can win on is issues -- and we saw that strategy shift at the debate this weekend: what were Burns' biggest talking points? Agriculture, Iraq and taxes. Those will be his big sellers. He can rattle off bill numbers of taxes Tester voted for while simultaneously telling people he voted to kill the estate tax. And, he can say he brought help home to places that needed it.

Tester has his own talking points on issues and they're all worth just as much merit as Burns'. They're also worth the same scrutiny.

The thing is, we're able to quantify issues better than we can personality. We can ask, straight up, "do you believe we should drill in the Rocky Mountain Front?" or "Do you think we should stay in Iraq or form an exit strategy?" But, it's harder to ask, "Do you identify with Conrad Burns? How does he make you feel?"

"It's an intangible that's virtually impossible to measure," Wilson says.

Personality is indeed the ultimate immeasurable. But that doesn't lessen its importance. One of the things I love about Montanans is that we do value a handshake and take people at their word. It's a value I grew up with, as did many of you. And we should continue to trust that instinct and use it. Yes, even in politics.

As Baucus pointed out: Issues should and will come up, but we must measure those issues with the values of whom we think will work on them.

The question then looms for us and for me: Is character important enough to win or lose elections? Important enough to ignore the issues altogether?

I'd wager yes to the first question, but then I'd demand a big fat no to the second. So would Wilson. Personality and policy go hand-in-hand, he says.

So, let's get the discussion pointed toward the important stuff. What are the issues New West readers care about in this race? What should we be pressing the candidates on? Conservation? Energy independence? Public land management? Taxes? Iraq?

Give me the questions and I'll look for the answers. We'll all need them come November.

In the meantime, don't forget to listen to that gut of yours.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.