Below the fold, in the January 29th issue of the Register, there’s a story on Jim Winship’s write-in candidacy for the Third Aldermanic District, and Dr. Nosek’s call for a voluntary ban on political lawn signs.
Winship. Winship has filed as a write-in candidate, as no one filed earlier to be on the ballot for the Third District seat. (Nosek is running against Marilyn Kienbaum for the at-large seat on Council, rather than re-election in the Third District. I will post separately on the race between Nosek and Kienbaum.)
Winship may not be alone as a write-in candidate; others may receive write in votes, too. In the last race, two years’ time ago, Nosek defeated Winship by two votes, in a race in which the winner had less than 200 votes, I recall. One can be sure that Winship, whatever agreement he may have with Nosek on some matters, will offer a marked difference should he be elected.
Lawn Signs. The Register recounts, but does not directly attribute to Nosek, his declaration that political lawn signs are ‘visual pollution’, ‘divisive in the community,’ and a ‘deterrent for possible candidates in municipal elections.’ The Register directly quotes Nosek as declaring that lawn signs are an “annoying promotional practice – like loud TV commercials (or) non-stop-Christmas music that starts Nov. 1.”
He’s describing political lawn signs, presumably including the small cardboard signs that say “Obama: Yes We Can,” or “McCain: Country First,” or “Reagan-Bush” or “Carter-Mondale.”
There’s no chance of banning these signs – Nosek surely knows they arer constitutionally-protected political speech – his call is for a voluntary moratorium. Fair enough – if candidates will so limit themselves, that’s they’re choice.
Someone might want to remind Dr. Nosek, though, that these signs have been part of American’s political tradition for decades, if not longer. Consider the list of national political candidates – with thousands of volunteers, in campaigns separated across decades – who produced and used these signs. Under Nosek’s view, they were all, counter-productively, polluting America. They did so, apparently, in campaign after campaign, never learning their lesson.
That’s false, of course – the campaigns that paid for these signs did so because they know that they work – they persuade more than they irritate. Frequent use over decades confirms their efficacy. There’s no way around seeing this.
Dr. Nosek may dislike these signs, but it’s an issue (however meaningful to him) that shows his limits as a politician. By emphasizing how irritating these signs are, when so many others display them in campaign after campaign, year after year, Nosek only reminds voters of how idiosyncratic some of his issues are (e.g., dumpsters, lawn signs). By the time voters learn about his signature issue – housing concerns – many have been alienated from his stridency on these – ultimately – trivial concerns.
His approach may make for much commentary, but Nosek isn’t running as an op-ed pundit, blogger, or editorialist – he’s running for an at-large Common Council seat. (I’ll post more on his race against Marilyn Kienbaum later.)
The press angle, in all this, is checking how different Nosek’s views are from many other residents’ opinions, who display these signs for all types of candidates, election after election. That’s easy to do – just ask why the signs keep popping up, if they’re so irritating. They’re less irritating than persuasive, that’s why.