There's a new Burns ad buy out in our market that's getting some serious play. I searched to see if someone has put it up on YouTube yet, but I didn't find anything. I would classify it as a highly effective spot--at least if you're not thinking too deeply.
The ad opens with some cute baby pictures, and a woman's voice-over explains that her son was only four months old when he was diagnosed with a heart condition that required surgery. Without it, in fact, her baby would die. Unfortunately, she goes on to say, they couldn't afford the necessary operation, so they called Burns' office, and he pulled strings enough to allow the baby to get the operation he needed, and now he's growing up thanks to Burns' work. At the end of the spot, the mom is holding the baby and walking with Burns, and she says something like, "Conrad didn't even know us, but he helped us save our baby."
I watched this the first time and was immediately struck by its efficacy. And then I thought harder. Let my preface this by saying that I don't in any way judge this woman for appearing in a Burns ad. If my own son were sick, I would move heaven and earth to make him well, and if the wages for that were appearing in a political spot, so be it. I mean that. I would deal with anyone and anything. But here's the thing: If you think about this chain of events for even a fraction of a second longer than the first beat of heartwarming story about a sick baby getting well thanks to a well-connected politician, the holes appear.
In fact, the fallacy of the whole ad reveals itself within seconds, as soon as she says, "We could never afford this surgery." Why is that? And how is that possible in a country as wealthy as ours? In almost any other developed nation this child would have the health insurance necessary to cover that life-saving operation, without the need for any intervention by a U.S. Senator.
I'm not quibbling with the ad's focus on Conrad's constituent services. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Burns and his staff kick ass when it comes to this kind of personal assistance and even in general dealings with Montana citizens and voters. When I send a letter to Conrad, I know I'll get a response, even if I'm writing (very polite and hopefully well-worded) hate mail about his voting record. He's the only one of Montana's elected officials in Washington I can say that about, and it seems to me that he is actually very concerned with individual Montana people who contact him for help. I don't doubt his sincerity on that.
Where he falls down again and again is serving Montana and its people as a whole. He has been part of the majority blocking any kind of increase in minimum wage, while simultaneously slashing social services of the sort that might have been able to assist the parents in that ad. Instead of allowing the government to put in place protocols for dealing with people in their situation, it seems that Conrad would rather set himself up to be a hero one constituent at a time.
It all feeds into his "Delivering for Montana" mindset. While I applaud his efforts on behalf of this baby and on behalf of other Montanans he has helped, I can't excuse his steadfast refusal to see government itself as an extension of the kind of help he actually likes to provide. I'm sure if you asked him about national health care or maternity leave or any number of other issues that impact children, he would give you a big, fat raspberry and bellow something about people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. But if this ad is to be believed, Conrad Burns has found at least one situation in which the market didn't provide, and he stepped in and manipulated that market.
It must be that this family's situation represents the only time in the history of Montana that market forces broke down, and that explains why he is reluctant to do anything to narrow inequalities or care for the less fortunate among us on a grander scale. He can fix these sticky situations one at a time, delivering all the while for the individuals of Montana while screwing us as a whole.