There is a test for distinguishing between arguments and insults masquerading as arguments, and it goes thusly: if you have to do a dictionary lookup of a claimed counterargument before understanding why it’s a counterargument, it probably is neither. It’s a sign that the speaker’s using shorthand for the audience that already shares their views, a costume for the real counterargument to don so it can pass more easily through the medium. The test is useful, and should be applied liberally, on both sides of the aisle, as two of New Jersey’s most prominent political arguments, one taking place in the Statehouse and another in the 7th Congressional District, demonstrate.
The first is the perennial budget argument against Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill’s first year in office, as expressed in the state’s right-leaning media. Disregarding the florid lies about her “affordability” pledge already detailed in the linked articles, there may yet be a substantive disagreement hidden beneath all the condescension. Sherrill has indeed promised to curb the growth of utilities costs, but the FY2027 budget unveiled six months into her term is set to grow by 1.7 billion compared to the previous year, and reach 60.7 billion dollars – hardly the language of fiscal conservatism. Her Power NJ Act, which has seen actual legislative approval, to develop more than 1,100 MW of new nuclear power, is similarly subject to criticism that the source of energy will be needed decade hence, when current trends in demand from data centers and building electrification are set to surge. Meanwhile her executive order 17 on housing policy was accused of creating commissions and task forces without actually lowering barriers to development, while her comments on potential congressional redistricting have been held up as a distraction from her competence on actually delivering on pocketbook issues.
On the other hand, each of these criticisms has a rebuttal that is worth considering. A 1.7 billion dollar increase in the state budget does not occur in a vacuum, with unfunded liabilities and teacher and hospital pay driving up costs beyond the control of any governor. Nuclear reactors do not open anywhere in the country for the simple reason that they take fifteen to twenty-five years to build, and a Power NJ Act represents a serious commitment to a power source that will provide the state with electricity well into the future. One executive order is not a comprehensive solution to the state’s housing crisis, particularly if it only creates task forces to recommend steps to deal with it – but it never promised to be. Each of these criticisms has a substantive reply, and each deserves to be heard by the public as befits a budget and energy policy disagreement of the first order.
But the condescension that peppers nearly every segment of these arguments does not have a substantive purpose, serving only to inflame and rally the loyal base rather than seeking to persuade the undecided. The same holds true in the other great NJ political argument of the moment, which concerns the 7th Congressional District, where Democrat Rebecca Bennett, former Navy helicopter pilot, has won her party’s nomination after a June primary against three other Democrats, and will face off against Republican Tom Kean Jr., the son of former governor and current presidential candidate Tom Kean, in the general election. This campaign has attracted attention far beyond the state, as the race in the toss-up district is expected to be critical in determining which party will hold the narrow majority in the House for the next two years, if not longer.
The criticisms of Tom Kean Jr. voiced by Bennett and her allies in the campaign are not without foundation, either. The junior Kean has missed 99 consecutive House votes – a remarkable showing given the infrequency with which the chamber actually votes – after casting a lone dissenting vote on March 5, when his office provided only vague commentary as to the reason for his absence. At the same time, Bennett has accused Kean of voting for a major tax cut package, and for refusing to oppose a potential derailment of the Gateway tunnel project linking New Jersey and New York, a major transportation infrastructure project. These are all tangible policy disagreements, ones that should be voiced and weighed by New Jersey’s voters, who will decide the fate of not only the district but the balance of power in the House.
But the campaign has also featured a number of criticisms of the absentee congressman that serve more to inflame than inform, ones that should be regarded with the same caution as the campaign finance practices of progressive super PACs across the aisle. To put it another way, what the campaign trail lacks in substance, it makes up for in slander. In late June, it was revealed that Kean’s medical condition, which kept him out of the chamber for more than two months, was depression – an unsurprising development, given the challenges he faced from his father’s campaign, and which has little to differentiate it from any other mental health challenge one is likely to encounter. However, prior to this revelation, Bennett, at a campaign rally, accused him of “failing the 7th District” and holding the job he was not fit to serve in, having taken up the post without regard for the people of New Jersey. In other words, the campaign team for Bennett has been quick to exploit a health scare before the cause or cure was known. A fair analysis of this campaign staple would note that mental health challenges deserve no less compassion than physical ones, and are no reason to deny someone the ability to work or serve – but that does not stop the attacks from coming, on both sides of the aisle, which is why neither should accept them from the other.
This lack of substance is indicative of the larger issue with these campaigns, one that has far more consequence to voters – both of the district and of the larger body – than the florid lies and hyperbolic accusations. The substantive disagreements outweigh the character assassinations in both cases, and deserve far more attention than either campaign is likely to give them in the coming months. The questions about Kean’s fitness for office, past votes, and tenure in office are ones for his would-be constituents to consider in full knowledge of the facts – but the timing of them, and the willingness to exploit a public health crisis for political gain, deserve no credibility whatsoever. After all, the loudest criticism of any member of Congress at any given moment is seldom going to be the most substantive one, no matter which side of the aisle is asking.
