R&D focus

Opinion polls are often described as mere snapshots of public sentiment. If so, a new survey regarding the upcoming $20 million bond referendum to bring Maine into the modern era of research and development presents one very ugly picture.

Four hundred potential voters were polled in July by Bowdoin College political scientist Christian Potholm’s consulting firm, the Potholm Group. Of those, 28 percent were opposed, 11 percent in favor, 60 percent undecided. Bad turns to worse when one considers that, if past referendums (the Compact for Maine’s Forests in ’97, the gay-rights vote this year) are any guide, “undecided” is often a polite way of saying “opposed.”

There is, however, hope. The numbers improve somewhat, though not dramatically, when the benefits of R&D investment are described — 29 percent oppose, 37 percent approve, 34 percent remain undecided. But that’s still way too many people being polite.

Yesterday was Labor Day, the unofficial start of the campaign season. This campaign is starting late, but, if done properly, it’s not too late.

First, promoters of this bond must not be shy. This is an important vote; perhaps, if one looks into the future, one of the most important votes Mainers will make. Here are some central points the campaign must make: Maine’s economy is stagnant, which in reality means it is moving backward; this is directly related to Maine’s rank of 50th among the states (maybe it’s 49th) in investment in research and development; other states — North Carolina being a particularly shining example — have turned decline into growth by investing in themselves.

And, above all, the campaign must stress that this is investment, not spending. The University of Maine, which would receive $13.5 million from the bond to upgrade its research facilities, has, in the last five years, leveraged the paltry R&D funding it has received fourfold in federal and private-sector grants. The campaign cannot ignore deep concerns that Maine’s tax burden is too high — it’s too high because Maine does not grow the businesses and jobs it needs to support itself.

The Potholm Group notes that the poll numbers don’t change much when voters are asked if campaign pitches should be made by various high-profile figures in politics, education or athletics. It’s no surprise, based upon past referendums, that Mainers don’t like being told how to vote. That’s why it is a surprise that the consultants recommend that the television and radio campaigns employ an authoritative spokesperson, what is called in the trade a “voice of God.”

The voice of the people would be better. Yes, research and development is about high tech, biotech and a lot of other techs with which Maine has little experience. But it’s also about farming, fishing and forest products. There could be no more effective spokesperson than a lobsterman, aquaculturist, blueberry grower, woodlot owner, potato or dairy farmer whose business has been helped by UMaine research. They’re out there, they’re grateful, they’ll gladly return the favor. Throw in their children, who would like to stay in Maine as adults if there are good jobs for them, and this campaign could be a winner.

It will succeed to the extent that the egghead, arcane factor is reduced and the real-world paycheck implications are emphasized. Political consultants have a language all their own, and the Potholm Group’s are entitled to say in their report that the “symbolic referents and influence vectors must be ruthlessly employed on a priority basis.” Just so they don’t say such a thing in public.

And while the use of celebrity spokespersons is risky, Maine is blessed with a healthy population of retired public servants, senators, governors and the like. They could be invaluable roving ambassadors, making the referendum’s case before service clubs and other community forums.

Finally, there is the obligation the voters have to educate themselves on this vital issue and to make its importance clear to anyone running for office. Enthusiastic support for this referendum should be the litmus test for all candidates on the November ballot.

This referendum has no organized opposition. The opposition is far more insidious than any party or organization could ever be — it is inertia, it is the extent to which Maine has become comfortable with decline. It’s a dangerous enemy and it wins if this referendum loses.