From Perry Newman of MaineBiz [a monthly business newspaper], to Bruce Kyle of the Bangor Daily News, Maine’s journalists have called for the candidates in the 2nd Congressional District race to “propose solutions, not platitudes” for the district’s economic situation.

Platitudes are attractive because they make complex matters simple and tend to make people “feel good.” Of course, it doesn’t take a pollster to confirm that people like to feel good.

Not surprisingly, candidates who avoid depressing or difficult realities and allow voters to “feel good” often win. Since too many elected officials are “career” politicians rather than public servants there tends to be, all too often, an emphasis on winning rather than on confronting tough issues.

And who can blame the voters and the politicians? After all, who really wants to know that an estimated 49 factories have closed in the 2nd District and some 6,000 jobs have been lost within the past decade alone? Who wants to hear that our brain drain is so significant that by 2010 we may no longer have a 2nd District in Maine? If you think there are two Maines now just wait until we have only one representative. Who really wants to know that approximately 75 percent of our adults never receive an education beyond high school – not because they don’t want to but because they cannot afford to.

While confronting reality is never pleasant, it is necessary if progress is the goal. Maine’s economic situation needs serious attention and it needs it now. The Corporation for Enterprise Development’s (CFED) annual Development Report Cards provide a sobering reality. Maine has dismal grades on comprehensive development indicators. For example, we have straight C’s on employment, earnings and job quality, and resource efficiency. We have earned F’s for infrastructure resources, amenity resources, and innovation assets. Finally, we rate a D for overall development capacity. We must ask ourselves why and how can we improve?

If the candidates in the congressional race are unwilling to talk about these issues in a campaign, is it fair to ask what kind of leadership will they be able to provide on even tougher issues in Washington? I think so.

I am a candidate for the 2nd District congressional race because I believe in public service. I have been doing it all my life, just not in my home state. After Bush became president and the September 11 tragedy, I decided it was time to come home.

Can I solve the 2nd District’s dramatic economic slide? No. Will your life dramatically improve if I am elected? No. Then what do I have to offer? While many of my opponents are promising sweeping, “feel good” proposals, I am offering a few nitty-gritty developmental ideas – promises that I can actually keep.

Here are a few: 1) cap my congressional salary and give an estimated $60,000 back to scholarships for Maine high school graduates; 2) create new types of constituent services in the representative’s offices such as a grants expert and a red-tape buster to help the 2nd District’s nonprofits and small business achieve more; 3) pledge to be a public servant not a career politician by serving for no more than four terms in the U.S. House; and 4) provide vocal leadership, advocacy and representation in Washington and Maine on issues we must confront, such as our lack of economic planning.

As a development expert, I know that one of the very first steps development experts undertake when examining a region is an overall assessment of where that region is at the moment and where it would like to be in five or 10 years. What is the competitive advantage? How is this obtainable? What are the priorities for the people of that region? What is the history and identity of the region and how does this relate to economic and social growth? Creating a comprehensive development plan is one of the most basic procedures for encouraging good growth. Without it chaos and inefficiency abound.

Maine does not have a comprehensive plan. Apparently, it never has had one. Maine State Economist Laurie Lachance’s OneMaine plan is the closest thing we have. While Lachance’s plan is excellent, and should serve as a guideline for future work, we still lack a developmental map that has been agreed to, collectively, by our citizens and public leaders.

If Maine hopes to earn A’s in more than quality of life, we must, as a state, sit down together and agree upon a developmental plan. Like a household we must gather at the kitchen table, after the kids have gone to bed and the house is quiet, pour ourselves a cup of coffee and list our assets and liabilities. We must discuss our spending priorities. Agree upon our financial goals. Align these with our personal goals. What will we refuse to compromise on? Where are we more flexible? What do we want Maine to look like in five years? In 10 years? What do we need to do to get there?

The issues and the solutions are complex. It is much easier to talk in platitudes. Yet, this is one candidate who is committed to substance over rhetoric. I do not have all the solutions. No one person can or should. But I do believe that the value of public service is directly related to the capacity for vocal leadership on tough issues.

While platitudes may win elections, I know that the people of Maine demand and deserve more from their public leaders. From Margaret Chase Smith to George Mitchell, we are a state that has always elected articulate leaders willing to take on tough issues. The 2002 election cycle is no time to waver in this tradition.

Lori Handrahan, of Sorrento, is a Democratic candidate for Maine’s 2nd District seat in the House of Representatives. Some portions of this originally appeared in MaineBiz, Feb. 4.