I’m a political conscientious objector in the sense that contrary to widespread belief, there is no Constitutional sanction for the two-party system, and consequently, I refuse to accept a dual monopoly that I perceive as being consistently detrimental to the American public interest.
Apologists praise the two-party system for its supposed tendency to filter extremism and hew to the centrist middle ground – and I scoff at it for the same reason. To paraphrase the newly rehabilitated Barry Goldwater, extremism in pursuit of progress sometimes is no vice.
Unsurprisingly, I’ve neither the rampant warm fuzzies for the tribal allegiances therein, nor great affection for the implicit and explicit divisions of power maintained by the status quo that both parties have an obvious vested interest in maintaining.
That said, it is undeniable that I’ve voted Democratic far more often than not, reserving my periodic third-party (or no party) protest votes for those situations where the conceptual futility of the two-party system is so patently obvious, but the outcome of the race sufficiently preordained, that my protest vote is not wasted.
That’s because philosophically and temperamentally, there is nothing in conservatism or fundamentalism for me, as witnessed by a recent Economist observation that nine of ten born-again whites support the war in Iraq. For reasons like this and other personal considerations, the pragmatic choice generally has been the Democratic candidate.
There have been exceptions, and so it goes … but not happily.
Regular readers of NA Confidential know that my periodic outbursts of anguish at the renewed prospect of trudging to the polls to vote “against” the greater of two mediocre frauds rather than “for” a genuinely principled platform have grown more frequent with advancing age. I’m increasingly resentful of an institutionalized monopoly of power that cannot, by its very nature, provide a reasonable outlet for my beliefs and for the beliefs of numerous others like me.
You’ve witnessed abundant proof of my disaffection during the past week.
Like Lear on the storm-tossed heath, I’ve bellowed and raged at a Democratic congressional challenger whose apparent eagerness to occupy political ground firmly to the right of center encourages me in absolutely no way whatsoever – and the concurrent knowledge that the incumbent Mike Sodrel’s political world view is even more antithetical to my personal beliefs leads yet again to the numbing realization that I inhabit an inhospitable climate dedicated to providing me with little or no political choice – except once again to vote against Sodrel by voting for the only candidate with a realistic chance of beating him.
And that's Baron Hill.
These perfectly legitimate qualms aside, it of course remains true that the enemy of my enemy is indeed my friend, and by this logic, I’ve persisted in believing that a sense of satisfaction might yet derive from “fellow traveler” status with relation to the local branch of the Democratic Party, and that perhaps local independents might yet partake of some measure of political sustenance accordingly … and yet it is this perhaps forlorn hope that has been the most cruelly dashed of all.
Even an educated, youthful and reformist local Democratic leadership slate has been unable or unwilling to stand on specifics, instead allowing the traditional vacuum of ideas to persist and to preserve the local political party as little more than a fraternal club, one devoid of stated platform, coherent principle or any real plan beyond a willingness to draw the requisite number of paychecks once in office.
And just look where long decades of that variety of planning has taken New Albany. 3rd District councilman Steve Price may be a nonentity, but he didn’t create the mess. He inherited it, and not unexpectedly, hasn't the slightest clue as to how it might be improved.
But don’t give me the knee-jerk objection that local Republicans would do much better. They, too, have ample opportunity to stand for some doctrine applicable to the street where you live, and they, too, steadfastly refuse to provide local vision in comprehensible form.
Over the long post-war era of underachievement, Republican officials have failed as spectacularly as Democrats, and like their opponents, they’ve been rewarded for non-accomplishment by continuing to participate in the division of spoils made possible by the two-party system – truly the devil we know, but bringing us to a juncture where meritocracy might as well be a discredited Balkan feudal system of government.
Oddly, and tellingly, the personal and professional achievements of the sitting Democratic leadership slate powerfully refute the oft-repeated notion that local politics is somehow immune from the organization, planning and vision that are required of all of us in everyday life. You can bet that Randy Stumler, a teacher, conducts class with a carefully prepared lesson plan. Tony Toran’s church sermons are anything but streams of random consciousness without ultimate purpose. Marcey Wisman’s heroic work with insufficient resources as city clerk is the stuff of systemization legend.
All we independents and contrarians ask is that these same obvious and admirable skills be put to the task of transforming their party into a thinking entity with vision, one capable of slightly more than the bare minimum required to win elections – namely, a party capable of performing at a higher and more relevant level of skill and achievement once in office.
For those proceeding to the seemingly reasonable argument that a tactical alliance with independent non-Democrats holds no electoral benefit for the Democratic Party itself, need I point to the steadily growing Republican sentiment in Floyd County, something that inevitably is leaking into previously unassailable Democratic bastions in New Albany, themselves increasingly filled with rental properties that do not house reliable voters? Verily, the old realities are yielding to the new … and the new are requiring a different bedside manner than good old boy network that previously sufficed, and which continues to cough up Coffeyesque demagogues like so many feline hairballs.
To repeat, it is my earnest wish to be able to vote for the Democrats, and not merely against the Republicans, and I suspect there is a small and growing cadre of urban independents who agree.
But we must be given a bone in the shape of something strategic – it need not be everything, at least at first – to indicate a Democratic pulse, to show Democratic vision, and to display Democratic leadership, and lacking such a sign, it's worth remembering that although it is probably unlikely (yet not impossible) that the city’s independents will soon defect en masse to the Republican Party, the days of the lock-step are going quickly … and the prospect of sitting on our hands on Election Day becomes ever brighter.
Something, guys.
Just something.
---
Previously in NA Confidential: Bluegill's Meet The New Boss...
A quick editorial note:
ReplyDeleteStumler's web site has been redesigned since Meet The New Boss was published. While the offensive suggestion of New Albany clean up leadership has been removed, the general spirit of vagueness remains.
Don't hold your breath.
ReplyDeleteBluegill, thanks for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteAnn, as a realist, be assured that I'm not. However, at this point, it's all a consideration of posterity (such as slow learning New Albany grasps the concept).
I'll miss your writing, by the way. Consider contributing occasional piece to NAC if the mood strikes (your new link is up).
In trying to keep my deepening cynical side in check, my hope is that pendulum will start to swing back to real issues.
ReplyDeleteThe candidates know that pictures of their family on church steps, vague references to good roads, police protection, and home baked apple pie work. We voters have allowed this to work. It is hard to blame the candidates for this pragmatic approach to campaigning.
My hope is, since almost all candidates are appearing the same, some will have to find a way of differentiating themselves. Real issues could be the way. We have already seen this work(unfortunately)with the marriage issue.
Can "real" issues be just around the corner? Somehow I doub.......
Down cynical side--DOWN!!
The Guardian's Gary Younge recently broached the general topic on a national level with interesting feedback from readers.
ReplyDeleteWorth reading.
Here's a conundrum:
ReplyDeleteIf one of the major political goals of the aforementioned Democrat-leaning independents is to create a local Democratic party that stands on issues and Stumler has expressed direct opposition to that idea as chairman, does it make sense to vote for him in the commissioner's race, helping to continue his ascension in the party ranks?
If all politics is local, as Tip O used to say, where does that leave us neighbors hungering for a political vision that binds us all to NA as stakeholders? the Times Sunday magazine piece about Howard Dean and the Democractic party machine alluded to the moribund, in cases outright decayed (NA?) local democractic organizations and one good explanation for how it might have come about. I've met prolly about 100 progressive neighbors (citizens of the town) and that is certainly enough to start a movement for some sort of vision for some sort of respectable politics. I saw another neighborhood assoc formed recently in NA - the Uptown district. that's progress. but always we must all do more...
ReplyDeleteSeveral maybe random thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, when Barry Goldwater said the words, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” people reacted in almost universal horror. We were a mere 19 years off of World War II when the world fought extremism of one kind with the Nazis. We were a decade off of Korea when we fought extremism of another kind with the Socialists. We were ‘dabbling’ in Vietnam to fight extremism once again. In 2001 on 9/11 we also were dealing with extremism.
One problem that we have today is that while we fight extremism that doesn’t concur with our world view, we seem to accept it as a reasonable perspective ourselves. In recent years our world view has morphed into being completely liberal or completely conservative. Voices of moderation are shouted down as having no real convictions. As we evolve into a more and more extreme culture Goldwater’s words ring truer and truer to many. Except----they were met with almost universal horror in 1964 and it is chilling that we do not have that same reaction in 2006. Frankly, extremism of any kind ought to be terrifying and a dreadful vice. Candidates, in our era, have to play for and on extremism. It has become the position du jour. Goldwater, however, was wrong and until we regain our bearings, we are in deeper and deeper trouble.
Secondly, it’s time to realize that, on a national level both our political parties, have reached the point of absolute corruption. It is party first, positions second. It is party first, the nation second. I remember Jim Bunning’s campaign in Kentucky during the last elections. His primary premise was that Daniel Mongiardo looked a lot like a relative of Saddam Hussein. Bunning knew no issues, watched only Faux News, read no newspapers, and seemed to be clueless. Yet a great deal of money was pumped in to keep this totally empty suit in power. Party came first. To be completely fair, if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would have done exactly the same thing. Our two parties, on a national level, have reached the point of absolute corruption. It is about spin doctors, political advisors, and polling data and virtually nothing else.
Thirdly, the campaigns of today are gross. They truly are. I recoiled several years ago after Anne Northrup defeated Jack Conway in Kentucky in an absolutely vicious and vile campaign by both of them. I recoiled because I read that they are both religious people and both attended the same Roman Catholic Church. As a pastor, what does one say to people who are able and willing to lower themselves so dramatically in order to win an election. Perhaps he ought to have said, “I am ashamed of you both,” but I’m guessing he didn’t. Clergy have their own survival instincts.
The main reasons campaigns are done the way they are done is that they work. The candidate who is willing to spend the most money and play the dirtiest will win. Character does matter in campaigns. Usually the person of the lower character wins. And this is very, very sad.
Interesting to note that Mike Sodrel and Baron Hill promised a clean campaign. That promise lasted, what 20 minutes? They both ought to be ashamed of themselves.
John Yarmouth said in a recent campaign commercial in response to one of Anne Northrup ’s attack ads that she didn’t want to discuss the issues and people deserve better.
No we don’t. We are getting the campaigns we deserve because we continually elect the bozos who run the dirtiest campaigns.
One of the more interesting columns I’ve read about the way people vote was written by a columnist named Robyn Blumner who writes for the St. Petersburg Times. I don’t agree with Blumner on everything but I do find her to be provocative. And she even is willing to discuss complex subjects without feeling a need to dumb things down. She wrote this column:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/07/16/Columns/Democrats_need_a_new_.shtml
It is definitely worth a read.
Until we stop electing the people most willing to play the most dirty, and until we stop electing people on sound bites, and until we are able to vote on real issues as opposed to often specious values, we will stay in our current mode.
To this I can only say this.
Ugh!
And again I ask the questions;
ReplyDeletea)Where do we find honest people who care about pertinent issues to run for office?
b)How do we convince them to run?
c)Are we willing to wade thru the trenches with them to get them elected and then stand with them after the fact?
FtP, simply a great comment. Thanks.
ReplyDelete