Politicians, among others, routinely decry the lack of voter participation in elections. Why, they ask, do so few — 20 percent to 30 percent in primaries and just 60 percent or so in a general election — turn out to vote?
Those seeking to answer this question need only look to the race for Senate here in Massachusetts and the incumbent, John Kerry.
Kerry, a Democrat, has been the junior senator for the state for 24 years. He was his party's nominee for president in 2004 and collected more votes for president than any Democrat has ever received.
But in all these years of privilege and incumbency, Kerry has never had to face a Democratic challenger in a primary election — until now. Gloucester attorney Ed O'Reilly is angry over Kerry's 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq. The two Democrats will face off in a primary on Sept. 16.
This election presents Kerry with a unique opportunity to meet with Massachusetts citizens and renew his commitment to represent them to the best of his ability. After all, Kerry's run for the presidency in 2004 left the impression he had greater ambitions than merely serving Massachusetts in the Senate.
One would think Kerry would be eager to debate O'Reilly, to meet his questions head on, to respond to the challenges of his Iraq voting record.
One would be wrong.
This morning at 8:30 a.m. on WBZ-TV, the only debate between Kerry and O'Reilly was televised. This "debate" scarcely merited the name. It was recorded Friday morning in a television studio. There was no audience. It lasted a mere half-hour.
O'Reilly is eager for more debates. Challengers usually are. Debates offer O'Reilly his only opportunity to show voters what he's about. Kerry is bombing the airwaves with ads. O'Reilly is not. He doesn't have the money. As he said in a recent interview with our editorial board, it's a question of whether or not he wants to sell his house to finance a long-shot run for a Senate seat.
And it is a long shot. Barring an upset of staggering proportions, Kerry is going to bury O'Reilly under a blizzard of ballots. O'Reilly's hope, he told us, is that low turnout by complacent Kerry supporters gives him at least a chance to win.
From a purely political standpoint, Kerry is wise not to debate. Any further encounters with O'Reilly offer Kerry nothing but a chance to make a colossal blunder, a stumble or a slip of the tongue that would be caught on tape forever. Why risk it?
So instead, he offers excuses. He's too busy to debate. There's too much pressing business in the Senate for him to take the time.
How insulting to voters. They are fed up with purely political calculations.
Here is a candidate willing to take on an entrenched incumbent. Yet the incumbent, despite his advantages in name recognition, experience, money and the rest, refuses to take even the slightest risk of losing by offering his opponent a chance at debate, fair and square.
People recognize disrespect when it is directed at them. They see how incumbents can tilt the game in their favor.
It's why so many do not bother to vote.
