Partisan Politics Equals High Voter Turnout

The National Ledger ^ | April 18, 2005 | Michael Barone

[Coastal]

On two propositions most good-hearted civic-minded people agree: It is good to have centrist politics, and it is good to have high turnout in elections. But what if it should turn out that the two are in fundamental conflict?

For that is what political history, here and abroad, suggests. Consider the 2004 election in the United States. George W. Bush, his opponents contended, with some justice, governed as anything but a centrist. Installed in office with a bare majority of the Electoral College, he pushed successfully for massive tax cuts, for conservative positions on cultural issues, for military action not only in Afghanistan, but in Iraq. You can make an argument that Bush has governed as a centrist, but it is not an argument that is widely believed.

As for his opponents, the Democrats in 2004 emitted rhetoric that was extravagant in its denunciations of Bush and all his works. The Democratic candidate who set the tone in the primary, Howard Dean, has told us that "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

[vpintheak]

I wholeheartedy believe just because you can vote, doesn't mean you should vote. I won't stop anyone if they want to, that is for sure, but I am really glad so many youths don't vote. I am only 32 but I know thatmost younger people are complete total idiots. I was once in that category myself, then I grew up. College students are about the dumbest people on the face of the earth.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Michael went a long way around to state the obvious. Bland food never gets allocades like spicy food does.