Mike Rogers lost the U.S. Senate race in Michigan for many reasons. The pundits have debated them all. I’d like to suggest one more, based on my own interaction with his campaign as a reporter.

The Collegian sought a brief interview with Rogers in early October. We hoped to get a few minutes on the phone with him to ask basic questions, such as whether Hillsdale College should remain exempt from Title IX regulations and whether the federal government should tax college and university endowments. 

The reply from the Rogers campaign was peculiar: “We typically do not comment on localized issues.” Instead, the campaign sent me a document with boilerplate responses to questions I had not asked.  

I can understand why a Senate candidate might not want to comment on road repair on Oak Street in Hillsdale.

But I don’t understand why a Republican candidate would refuse to discuss the independence of Hillsdale College, a federal matter over which the Senate might have much to say. The college’s refusal to accept federal aid made national headlines as recently as last year, with College President Larry Arnn commenting multiple times on the issue. The Wall Street Journal, City Journal, and many others published on the topic. 

Protecting the college’s freedom requires allies in Congress, and perhaps most especially from Michigan’s representatives and senators. It would be good to know where they stand. 

Rogers didn’t lose because he refused to talk to The Collegian. It wasn’t even close to the deciding factor. He lost by about seven points. But his refusal may point to a larger problem: He doesn’t understand the concerns of Michigan voters because he fails to engage with them.

Candidates should strive to answer questions particular to the localities they seek to represent, if only to show that they care. The point is to try to understand the people you hope to represent.

Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrat who defeated Rogers, routinely took questions from reporters. Some were laughably friendly from a liberal press. Others were adversarial. Yet he gave them the time of day. He went out and met people. He talked with them, listened to their “local” problems and questions. His campaign seemed welcoming to the press and the people. 

The Rogers campaign, however, micromanaged to the point of alienating people. It was rare for a press team to get more than a few minutes with Rogers, if any. And, as with The Collegian, he was hesitant to answer questions. 

Hillsdale College may end up back in national headlines soon, depending on how Washington chooses to meddle with higher education. An answer from a person seeking to be sent to Washington as a senator is practical. Hillsdale College’s financial situation is not a small, local issue; it is constantly invoked when questions about higher education come up. 

El-Sayed was visible; Rogers was far less so. The Senate seat was a toss-up and could have been claimed by either candidate, especially considering how far left El-Sayed is from the center. 

Let this race become a lesson: Caring about local issues is necessary. It can decide an election. Policies matter, but caring about people and their problems brings more voters to the polls.

Ellie Fromm is a senior studying history.