Posted on 07/19/2005 11:42:03 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
My experience over the years working both inside the Capitol and out on the campaign trail, has taught me that at least half of the American public is quite ignorant of politics, elections, and public policy. Most have a vague recollection from their high school civics classes of the structure of the American political system: two major parties, a legislature, courts, and that they somehow all fit together.
At some point this disconnected segment of the American electorate was instilled with the notion that there is something wrong with partisan allegiances. To belong to a party and to subscribe to a party platform is seen as unthinking, lazy, or corrupt. Strike up a conversation about partisan issues and the response is “I vote for the man, not the party.” How special.
No one has ever really explained to me how you “vote for the man and not the party” in our polarized two-party system as it exists in America today. Do they select their candidate based on the clothes he wears? The jokes he tells? His wife’s hairdo? Some will say, “I vote based on character.” Others will tell you “I consider his stand on the issues.” The irony of it all is that while doing their best to sound like deep thinking, civic-minded citizens, they are in fact demonstrating their ignorance.
In every corner of this great nation, we find only two major parties. They are locked in a never-ending game of “King of the Hill” for control of the state and federal legislatures. One party believes more government, more social programs, and higher taxes are the solution to society’s problems. The other party believes more government, more social programs, and higher taxes are the cause of society’s problems. There can be no middle ground.
Unfortunately, I have heard the man-not-the-party argument more often from registered Republicans. Anyone who has gone precinct walking door-to-door will concur. A lot of very close races in recent years have been decided by just a handful of votes. Republicans lost control of the state Assembly in 1996 by less than 10,000 votes cast in three key races around the state. In 2002, Sen. Tom McClintock lost the race for State Controller by a mere 16,000 votes statewide. Thank the man-not-the-party voters for putting the Democrats in charge all these years.
Those who vote across party lines claim to search for a more open-minded, “moderate” candidate who thinks like they do — one who isn’t bound by partisan loyalties. He will vote his conscience, we are told. Unfortunately, under the winner-take-all rules that govern California’s Legislature and legislatures across the land, only one vote matters. The first vote this “man” will make when he sets foot in Sacramento is to vote for his party’s candidate as leader of the Assembly or the Senate. Thereafter, 90 percent of everything is more or less settled for the next two years.
It no longer matters what the “man” thinks on the major issues of the day. The ideological forces that control his party have already set the agenda.
The erroneous assumption that drives these man-not-party voters is that every issue that comes up is duly considered by all the members, and so they can count on their guy to do the right thing. Sadly, it doesn’t work that way. This so-called moderate will seldom if ever be given the opportunity to join hands across the aisle to pass legislation.
Before any bill gets to the Legislature floor it must pass through committees. The Democrats in charge decide which bills live or die, through the committee process. They stack the committees likely responsible for the most controversial legislation with “loyal“ Democrats from the safest seats in the state. For example: the Public Safety Committees of both houses, which oversee all the tough-on-crime legislation. Those committees are usually stacked with liberals from the Bay Area and East Los Angeles, where demographics dictate that no Democrat will ever lose any general election. They are free to torpedo otherwise popular bills such as those that crack down on child molesters. Democrat legislators from places like the Central Valley where Democrat voters are not so liberal-minded will never be in a position to vote for such common-sense bills. Meanwhile children continue to be abducted and murdered by the predators roaming freely in our midst.
The same games go on with nearly every other important issue, from taxes and spending to relief from traffic congestion.
Voting under the imaginary rules of non-partisanship amounts to nothing more than political stupidity. The next time someone raises their chin in the air and smugly pronounces “I vote for the man, not the party,” thank them for the mess they’ve made of our state.
Great find NR. Who has the McClintock ping list?
In the words of Hillary... "I Don't Recall?" lol
calcowgirl is good for starters, tho. Researching.. :)
In other words, most people in moderate to liberal states are liberals who have more money than many liberals did 60 or so years ago. They like things that help out the business community but also like to see a large welfare state. They are mostly extreme foreign policy liberals / appeasers and cannot stomach war. Most of them thought Clinton was cool, and do not like W. They like Arnie but not for the same reasons many of us do. They think Gonzalez would be "a conservative" judge. They refer to evangelicals as "The Christian Right" or things I cannot write here. They see nothing wrong with Gay "marriage" and don't understand the big deal about abortion. Most are Baby Boomers, with this way of thinking somewhat less prevalent among older and younger generations. Most were significantly to the Left in their youth. Etc....
ping
My apologies in advance if you get double pinged to this thread, wanted to get it out there.
I think calcowgirl ran off with the chuckwagon chef .. again. ;-)
Thanks!
There is such an "other party"? Who would that be?
< /sarcasm>
I think this article is fabulous, NR. Thanks for posting it. I've always thought this "I vote for the man" is nothing more than lack of committment and fear of losing social standing. Reminds me of high school.
It is difficult to take this author seriously in light of our recent recall election. Schwarzenegger is an excellent example of voting for the man and not the party and accomplishing your goals.
Many Democrats voted for Schwarzenegger and got exactly what they thought they were getting and exactly what they wanted.
It's hard to take you seriously. What has ANYONE accomplished by voting for Schwarzenegger?
If you read the article again you will see that the author's emphasis and arguments were based on the "man-not-party" voting in legislative races.
One party believes more government, more social programs, and higher taxes are the solution to society’s problems. The other party believes more government, more social programs, and higher taxes are the cause of solution to society’s problems.
They agree on the destination (totalitarian government control over Americans' lives), but have high and mighty arguments over the pace and the details.
...the party that Tom McClintock continues to remain registered in.
You could have fooled me.
The Democrats (especially anchor babies) who "crossed over" and voted for Schwarzenegger have gotten exactly what they wanted.
They got a fellow traveler who is growing the government, expanding the social saftey nets, protecting non resident aliens from deportation and generally protecting the wishes of the Democrat leadership in the legislature.
Schwarzenegger has only gone against legislative wishes when those wishes were obviously unpopular with the average Democrat (driver's licenses for illegal aliens and removal of the general fund subsidy from of the in-lieu-of fees on motor vehicles).
Schwarzenegger is the archetype example of why voting for the man instead of a party can directly benefit a voter or class of voter.
That would be me. Sorry for the delayed reply/ping; I've been away.
Hey, NR... ChuckWagon? ROFL.
A belated ping to a great article.
BTT!!!!
i have a feeling that elections are going to come tom's way in the future.
In 1994 Republicans captured control of the State Assembly 41-40, when after 3 weeks of ballot counting a very liberal Republican in Long Beach finally won by about 300 votes. They elected a prolife, anti-tax, small government, conservative speaker who then appointed all the committee chairs.
If there were a handful of people like you who instead chose to sit out that race back then, Willie Brown and the commies would have retained their firm grip on things for that entire legislative session.
Having worked in Sacramento during that time, I saw the HUGE difference it made.
You obviously missed the point of the article. You need to look past the back of your hand and think of the long term consequences of your vote.
Where did I say I sat out that election, and whatever gave you the thought I voted for a single Democrat that year? That would indeed be news to me.
Until last year I had been a registered Republican for 35 years, and voted accordingly. Watching government spending spiral out of control on the federal level, with all three branches of the federal government in Republican hands, had me take inventory. Regardless of how the Republican Party platform reads, it is the deeds that matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.