The citizens of Ohio have spoken, and it is at least clear what they’re not saying: “Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!”
This week, the Ohio Poll studying Ohioans’ opinions of their potential choices for the U.S. Senate was released. The poll showed an overwhelming percentage of voters lean toward incumbent Republican George Voinovich. The majority of Democrats said they would choose state Sen. Eric Fingerhut, a Cleveland Democrat who announced his candidacy last month, over Voinovich. However, these same Democrats preferred the Republican ex-governor to a possible third choice: Jerry Springer.
Nearly everyone has at least heard of Springer; in the poll, only 2 percent of respondents had no idea who he was. Most know him primarily as the host of a sleazy syndicated television show in which guests scream obscenities and throw chairs at one another. He is also known for his role as the star of the movie “Ringmaster” and as the only mayor of Cincinnati to ever be busted for paying a prostitute with a bad check.
Seventy-one percent of those surveyed found Springer “unfavorable” as a candidate, a rating which the director of the Ohio Poll described as the highest — meaning the worst — in 14 years.
So the numbers are in; Ohioans think Springer is a joke. There are those out there who say he shouldn’t even run — that his candidacy would be a mockery of democracy.
Actually, the very fact that a man like Springer is allowed to run for Congress is an example of the democratic process.
One of the things which sets the United States apart from other, more restricted countries is its insistence that anyone who wants can become anything he or she wants to be. White people, black people, men, women, the rich and the poor — and even the icons of trashy TV — can step up to the plate and hope people will listen to what they have to say.
It may sound odd to say Ohio owes it to America to give Springer a chance, but it is true. Ohioans have the freedom to listen to or ignore whichever candidates they choose, but to disallow a candidate a voice simply because of his background would be to reject the freedoms granted to U.S. voters.
At the same time, voters should take their rights seriously. If Springer runs, and if his platform turns out to be almost as insubstantial as his show, then it is the voters’ responsibility to vote against him. Just as a person’s background is a bad indicator of his ability to govern, so is his fame. Ohioans who vote for Springer for no other reason than because he’s been on TV are flouting democracy as surely as those who think he should not run.
And that’s our final thought.
