The District
 The Incumbent
 The Challenger
 The Analysts
 How to Teach this Case

The District
Have you ever driven on the back roads connecting towns of 10,000-40,000 in population? If so, you've seen this district. It passes through numerous small towns (and rural communities) in six counties in this Farm Belt state. These towns are characterized by their two-block long Main Streets, churches, and Kiwanis Clubs. The district is almost entirely white and Christian. Small business and family farms predominate. The people here generally do not want government on their backs, except when it comes to federal support for farming. The district also surprised many when it almost voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 - much of this, analysts concluded, was because of small business concern over the rising cost of health insurance. This exception aside, these are conservative, small government, church-going people.

In the last year, some local family farms have been forced to sell out to larger, agribusiness interests. Family farmers in this district have increasingly come to believe that small farms face numerous economic obstacles, which has precipitated some concern here. In the opinion of many, the Republican zeal to cut the federal budget, and with it farm subsidies, have contributed to the problem. Fairchild generally has voted against such efforts to cut the farm subsidy, but many constituents wonder how actively he has pursued this issue.

The Incumbent - Peter Fairchild (Republican)
Some members of Congress are consensus-oriented, compromise seekers. This one is not. Peter Fairchild views his job in Congress as being to push his right-wing agenda and to help "educate colleagues who persist in casting misguided votes." Fairchild grew up in this district as the son of a wheat farmer, attended high school here, and played cornerback on the state college team that won the conference championship sixteen years ago. After college, he came back home and managed a chain of three motor parts stores. At 33, he bought out the owner and became a small businessman.

During this time, Fairchild became active in the local religious scene. A churchgoer all his life, he had a "profound religious transformation" after college and became much more religious. This has had little effect on his views - he always was strongly pro-life, pro-school prayer, and conservative. What it did do was to affect his intensity on these issues. Fairchild became chairperson of the local Right-to-Life chapter, a plaintiff in a lawsuit regarding posting the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse, and vice-chair of the local Christian Coalition chapter.

Six years ago, when the local Republican incumbent congressperson retired, Fairchild ran in a three-way primary for the nomination. He staked out the extreme right-wing position and was victorious over his two moderate rivals (both conceded afterwards that by staying in the race, they had split the moderate vote and allowed Fairchild to win with less than a majority). Fairchild went on to win the general election by 56%-44%. He was reelected with 61% of the vote four years ago and 62% two years ago.

In Congress, Fairchild became vice-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus and leader of an informal group that aimed to "bring God back to the schoolhouse." He co-sponsors a constitutional amendment banning abortion each session, and has consistently voted against funding abortion in any form in the United States or abroad. He was a fierce critic of Bill Clinton, calling him "the most immoral man to ever hold the presidency." Fairchild caught many headlines last year with his bill to make adultery grounds for forfeiture of all marital assets in a divorce case, as well as to make it a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in jail. The bill died in committee.

Fairchild proudly states that he did not go to Congress to win friends ("That's obvious," a Democratic colleague has noted) or to compromise and pass imperfect legislation. Rather, Fairchild simply believes he is right and that compromise would be "morally wrong." Consequently, he is an advocate for his causes, but not all that successful as a legislator. He concentrates almost exclusively on these social issues.

The Challenger - Scott Sykes (Democrat)
After years of running fairly weak challengers against a succession of Republican incumbents, the Democrats might actually have a strong candidate going this year. Scott Sykes moved to this district from Buffalo eight years ago, and has been working in the district as a regional manager for a large national drug store chain with six stores in the district. Sykes has had no previous political experience. He is, however, from a fairly wealthy family, well-connected in town, and a charming and gregarious man who thus far has done well raising money.

Sykes is pro-choice, although he says he is willing to support some "reasonable" restrictions on abortion. He is a very staunch advocate of increasing the federal support and subsidies to farmers. He tells voters that he is the person who can help them through the difficulties farms are facing. "I will make this my first priority in Congress," he stated when he announced his candidacy. "My opponent has not. If you believe the family farm problem can be solved with a constitutional amendment banning abortion, or some silly law throwing adulterers in jail, vote for my opponent."

The Analysts
Political analyst Sam Balish describes the race as follows: It is hard for me, but not impossible, to imagine Fairchild losing this election. He comes from the district, speaks their language, and has appeared strong. But, he might be drifting too far right of the district. Remember, his win in the original primary was something of a fluke. And, as a time when his constituents are reaching out to government for economic help, Fairchild is becoming even more involved in social issues. If Sykes can paint the picture of Fairchild being ideologically extreme and out-of-touch, he could win. Leans Republican.

Democratic Party consultant Barry Simon has offered the following advice to the Sykes campaign: We can win this one. Your opponent is hopelessly out of touch with where the district is. OK, let's get one thing straight. We're going to take a hit on abortion. We need to keep that issue quiet, perhaps move a bit to the right on the issue, and realize there are some fanatics on the other side who won't be with us. But, we must make the argument, repeatedly, that Fairchild is irresponsible focusing so much attention on this issue when the district needs health insurance reform and assistance to family farms. We also need to repeatedly hit the theme that our guy is a nice person, easy to work with, and the kind who will succeed as a legislator, not as a rigid ideologue.

Republican Party consultant Adam Newman offers this advice to the Fairchild campaign: I don't perceive this challenge as being especially dangerous. You and the district are in substantial agreement on the issues, especially when it comes to abortion and religious-type issues. And, as far as farming issues go, you have always supported family farms. We may need to do an event or commercial to demonstrate even more convincingly how intensely you work on family farm issues. But, really, family farmers cannot claim you have been ignoring them.

How to Teach this Case
This election does nicely to illustrate the concepts of intensity and participation. Fairchild has certainly taken a very intense stand on the issue of abortion, providing him an opportunity to exploit his involvement here for votes. It seems clear to me that he will want to emphasize not just his positions on this issue. He will also want to emphasize, to his pro-life constituency, how intensely he feels about this issue. And, he will want to emphasize the extent to which he has participated in legislative activity around this issue (and also on other issues of concern to the religious right).

On the flip side, Fairchild is being accused of not participating enough on issues dealing with family farmers. While he has voted the right way, rumblings persist that he is not giving enough time and attention to this. The distinction between national and local issues is being raised here. Moreover, it emphasizes the need for Fairchild to sell the district on his commitment to the district, and to this issue.

One other important question is how Sykes handles the abortion issue. He is clearly going to take a hit on this issue. Does he do better by being open and up front on this issue, admitting he differs from the constituency and hoping to move past it? Or, should he try to minimize the role of this issue in the campaign? This is an open question for students to consider.