
Paul Stekler,
co-producer of "Vote For Me: Politics in America"
interviewed by Harry Goldstein and Laurie Ouellette
|
"On election night, one candidate wins, one loses.
Joyous victory speeches mix with tears and sadness. And when there's a
blowout, people lose interest. There's a reason why the ratings for the
Clinton-Dole debate were so low."
If this year's Presidential race is a predictable melodrama whose last
scene is a fait accompli, then maybe it's time you took a look at the politics happening much closer to home, perhaps next door -- maybe in your own
living room.
Or on PBS, where "Vote For Me: Politics in America", a four-hour documentary focusing on the intersection of local politics and local culture airs on two consecutive nights -- Monday, October 28, at 9pm and Tuesday, October 29, at 9pm. Following local candidates running for office all over the
country, from a young, Irish Republican alderman named Brian Doherty in
Chicago to Providence, Rhode Island's pig-kissing, mayor-for-life Buddy
Cianci, "Vote For Me" is by turns hilarious and heart-rending as it peers
inside the process of what it's like for real people to run for public
office.
After a sneak preview in New York, we talked to Paul Stekler, one of the
producers of "Vote for Me," about the American political scene and what he
learned while making the documentary.
Tripod: How did you first get interested in politics, and how did "Vote for
Me" come about?
Paul Stekler: I guess some people are just born political junkies. My
first memory of my own political bug showing itself was going out on to a
corner near the house I grew up in, in suburban New Jersey in 1960, and
stopping people who passed by, pencil and pad in hand, asking them who they
were going to vote for in the Kennedy-Nixon presidential election.
Later on, I got a doctorate in political science, taught at Tulane in New
Orleans, and made a living as a political consultant in Louisiana, all
before starting to do documentaries on politics for PBS full-time.
The original idea for the series came years before we actually started
filming. I was walking around downtown Chelsea, Massachusetts, just
outside of Boston, on an election day ten years ago. Workers for one of
the mayoral campaigns were emptying a bus-load of residents of a nearby
retirement home, walking each one to the benches surrounding City Hall,
placing large placards on wooden stakes in their hands, balancing each
person and their sign, and then walking back to the bus for the next
person. Few of the people from the bus, bundled on a crisp New England
morning, seemed very aware of being part of a heated election. Their big
kelly-green signs read something like 'O'Brien for Mayor' and had prominent
shamrocks up and down the borders.
The man coordinating the scene walked around placing green and white
tamoshanters bearing the candidate's name on every bare head. I turned to
the friend I walking with and said that this could never happen in
Louisiana, where I was living at the time. Down in Louisiana, the bus
drivers on election day were paid to get voters to the polls, paid by the
voter, so there was no time to set up such pretty polling place visuals.
The point was that Massachusetts is not Louisiana. Different cultures,
different customs, and different politics. And there, visually, was a way
to show it. The idea grew in my head that politics as a reflection of America
might be a neat way to organize a film.
Several years later, Louis Alvarez, Andrew Kolker and I put this idea to
the test, by making a film about the political culture of Louisiana. Our
film, "Louisiana Boys: Raised on Politics," was a modest hit on PBS, won a
duPont-Columbia Journalism Award, and led public television to let us
pursue the same approach -- examining the connection between culture and
politics -- in a series about the entire country. And so "Vote for Me: Politics in America" was born.
|
"I know that the pundits dislike focusing on the horse race aspect of elections, but Americans like close contests."
|
Tripod: It's almost conventional wisdom today that the public is apathetic
about politics. But in your film, you show another side of electoral
politics, one that is bursting with grand passions and human energy. Is
there a gap between what we believe about politics and what's really going
on out in the heartland?
PS: Well, Americans have always claimed to dislike politics -- finding it
too dirty and corrupt -- but they've usually liked the guys they elect.
That's why we tend to reelect most incumbents. In our day-to-day lives,
elected officials can minister to town needs, essentially fixing the
potholes. In the game of what-have-you-done-for-me lately, politics often
works for many of us.
And for some of us, its exciting as well. I know that the pundits dislike
focusing on the horse race aspect of elections, but Americans like close
contests. It's a compelling drama, repeated every election cycle, the kind
of story that people immediately understand and are familiar with. There's
issues, ideology, passion, lively debate. And there's usually a stirring,
emotional conclusion. On election night, one candidate wins, one loses.
Joyous victory speeches mix with tears and sadness. And when there's a
blowout, people lose interest. There's a reason why the ratings for the
Clinton-Dole debate were so low. Nothing much is at stake at this point.
It was important to me to make a film that looked like the
politics I'm familiar with. The national media paints a
picture of politics that's negative, cynical, overly partisan,
ideological, and dour. Most of the people I know who
practice politics love their work. If anything, they're addicted to it.
It's fun to be part of the game, and that's what we wanted to show.
Tripod: There's a line in the film that says, "In American politics, the
great issues of the day take second place to practical issues." Can you
explain that? Is that one of the reasons why you focused on state and local
politics?
PS: There are people who care very much about the "great" issues as they
might be termed in the news. But those issues often pale compared to
people's concerns about their own day-to-day lives -- do they have a job,
is the streetlight working near their house, does the local school system work
well? Many of these 'issues' are local ones and it's local officials who
take those calls when the things people take for granted aren't working.
Sometimes local politicians are much more interesting characters than
national ones. And you don't often see more local politicians on TV. And
remember that this series is all about how politics reflects culture,
especially local culture.
|
"What's in it for someone running for office? I think it's part schmoozing
and part wanting to be a star."
|
Tripod: What do you think drives political candidates for offices like city
council member or alderman or state senator or small town mayor? Is it
ideology or something else? Watching the film, we got the sense that some
candidates were in it for the schmoozing, for the chance to be a star.
PS: What's in it for someone running for office? I think it's part schmoozing
and part wanting to be a star. Most people who run for office want to
accomplish something. They want to be leaders and do good. And they think
they're the best person to do just that. So ego is also part of the deal.
Ambition is a great motivator in most things, so why not in politics? I
think one of the strengths of "Vote for Me" is that you get to walk in the
shoes of people who want to run, who do run.
The last eighty-five minutes of night two is the story of a woman who decides to run
for Congress, but she has no previous political experience. A local television
personality, she answers the call when no one else decides to challenge the
powerful incumbent in her western North Carolina district. For the next
year, we watch her transformation as she learns the political ropes. In
the process, her entire life is changed. As an increasingly bitter
contest approaches election day, she faces the ultimate question: will she do whatever it takes to win?
So why does she run? Because she thinks she can make a difference?
Because she thinks she'd be the best person to serve? Because she's looking
for something new to do with her life? Probably all those things.
Tripod: One of the most surprising things in the film is the length to
which local and state candidates will often go to muster votes. I think
the film calls this process "retailing votes." What are some examples of
that and why does it happen?
PS: Well, to run for office in this country is, in part, to be a performer.
You'd better be prepared to throw hay bales at farm fairs or really kiss
babies or to knock on a lot of doors belonging to people you've never met
-- and who may have other things to do than discuss the upcoming election
with a complete stranger. This is hard work, but some people revel in it.
Mayor Buddy Cianci of Providence, who is a master at retailing votes, goes
as far as kissing a live pig, on camera of course, in our film. And the
strange lengths that candidates are willing to go is an important part of
"Vote for Me."
|
"If you read your history books, politicians were much less restrained in
their attacks on rival candidates a century ago."
|
Tripod: There's a really funny clip in "Vote for Me" where you make a mock TV
campaign ad for John Adams. The idea is that negative campaigning and
sensationalized mudslinging aren't anything new, that the dark side of
attacting votes has only been intensified by television. Is that true?
PS: If you read your history books, politicians were much less restrained in
their attacks on rival candidates a century ago. Political
opponents accused Andrew Jackson's mother of being a prostitute and said Jackson was
a bigamist (and a lot worse things, too). Back then, newspapers were
openly partisan and being "objective" wasn't very important in the press.
Believe it or not, we're a whole lot more responsible today. Granted, we
don't expect our candidates to be able to debate the great issues for
hours, like Abe Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in their famous debates, but the attacks are a lot tamer than they used to be.
Tripod: Do you think TV has had any effect at all on politics in America?
PS: TV has made it easier to get to a mass audience. On the other hand,
there are so many channels of entertainment now that people have other
options. As Mario Cuomo tells us, in the film, why would people watch the
Lincoln-Douglas debates when they could watch wrestling in the mud?
Seriously, the medium to deliver the message changes, but the messages stay
pretty constant. We tend to prefer folks who portray themselves as
average people, kind of non-political and non-partisan. Whether you live
in a log cabin in the 1860s or wear a flannel shirt in the 1990s, it's just
the way the message is delivered that changes.
Tripod: After spending three years chronicling American politics, what's
your general assessment about the workings of democracy? Is the system
broken? What could we do differently?
PS: I think Louis Alvarez, Andy Kolker and I have more of an appreciation
for the people involved in politics. There are still people out there
trying.
And going out to film them is a great way to learn about the country. I
don't think the system is broken. It may be flawed, but those flaws -- the
fact that we tend to vote personalities over issues, that we have divided
government, with state and local and national governments controlling
different things and making only incremental change possible -- are
probably responsible for the long-term stability of our political system.
As one guy in the film says, politics is what we Americans do instead of
shooting people.
That's not too bad.
|