“The term ‘optics’ is all-too familiar to those who have held positions of responsibility within the federal government. It refers to actions taken not because they advance important goals, although they may, and not because they are cost effective, although they can be, but rather because of appearances they disguise or create.” — Richard O. Lempert

Additional Images

Richard O. Lempert, who has worked for the Department of Homeland Security and served as a division director at the National Science Foundation, is griping about the influence of optics on bureaucratic operations, but that is trifling compared to the political professionals’ obsession with “optics.”

If you spend hours every day bouncing around the Internet checking up on the political contests across the country, you discover candidates repeatedly demanding that their rivals “stick to the issues.” They rarely really mean it. They are all looking for the right optics, and all hope that the other guy or gal will stumble into the wrong optics.

Wendy Davis, the Democrats’ candidate for governor of Texas, provides the most recent example of seriously bad optics. Clint Eastwood pleased a lot of Republicans by debating a chair in place of Barack Obama. Davis’ campaign decided that it might be clever to use an empty wheelchair in place of her paraplegic opponent. Even liberal commentators reacted to this with disgust and outrage. They apparently interpreted it as an appeal to anti-handicapped prejudices.

Davis attempted to regain ground by an event in which she appears surrounded by a platoon of wheelchaired supporters. This earned her thunderous guffaws and jeers. The woman rose to prominence on optics featuring her pink sneakers. Optics have now doomed her candidacy.

Elections are now 10 percent to 20 percent about issues and 80 percent to 90 percent about optics. I am convinced that political consultants, advisers, strategists and hacks are 99 percent focused on optics, and regard issues as an unwanted intrusion on serious electoral politics.

Mike Michaud is a master of optics. He tramps around in New Balance shoes. He carries a lunch box, showing that, despite over 30 years in politics, he’s really a mill worker, born with a blue-collar around his neck. The man is not a politician; nobody really likes politicians. He wants to be seen as a fork-lift pilot. The only people who dislike fork-lift pilots are the handful of unfortunates who’ve been run over by fork-lifts.

“I like Mike” is a perfect slogan for the man. “I love Mike” is a little too ardent, and might embarrass some heterosexual males. I always found the man likable. I called him an ignorant hack when I campaigned against him, but I never suggested he was not a nice guy. I stuck strictly to the truth on both counts.

You meet nice guys every day who never thought about running for governor. So what are the political optics of being a nice guy? You don’t boast about being a nice guy. Genuinely nice guys never boast about their niceness. No, you tell the voters that you are willing, even anxious, to work nicely across the aisle; that you love a good compromise; that you have no ideological preferences for anything except for things called “common sense” solutions. This works well for Mike because he has never allowed an idea to enter his head that hasn’t been poll-tested. If you doubt me, check out his major proposals; then check the polling data.

This also works because the Democrats have spent three years depicting Paul LePage as the “Beast of the Blaine House”— an Enemy of God, Man, and Mercy. The Democrats, generally seconded by Maine’s media, routinely show our governor looking dyspeptic or ill-humored.

Eliot Cutler ads that exploit this have popped up on my favorite websites over the last few days. They don’t have pictures of Cutler; they have pictures of Michaud looking vacuous and bewildered and of LePage looking annoyed.

It’s just because of Paul LePage’s indifference to optics that he has come to the attention of the national media. Unlike a real politician, he says in public what he thinks in private. All reporters, of whatever political persuasion, know there’s a huge gulf between private beliefs and public pronouncements. They all claim to prefer frank and open politicians. Nevertheless, they are so used to optics-centered politicos that they are shocked by a man who speaks his mind and think he must be downright crazy.

LePage seems to believe that the campaign should be about his past achievements and future hopes for regulatory relief, pension reform, paying off the hospitals, tax cuts, welfare reform and cheaper energy. Michaud’s primary concern is appearing to be friendly, willing to work across the aisle, and anxious to help people by giving them free stuff that someone else will pay for.

At the same time, the Democrats seize every opportunity to depict our governor as a man interested only in throwing hand grenades across the aisle. This works with a lot of people. We’ll have a clearer idea of how many by Nov. 4.

John Frary of Farmington is a former congressional candidate and retired history professor, a board member of Maine Taxpayers United and publisher of www.fraryhomecompanion.com. Email to [email protected].

Send questions/comments to the editors.