'Why Party Trumps Person' (a good review for the cut'n'run conservatives planning to sit out)

Mike Rosen archive page at KOA ^ | October 2004 | Mike Rosen

[ajolympian2004]

Based on this most recent poll here at FR a pathetic 4.7% of FReepers are planning to stay home during this election. You cut'n'run conservatives (intentionally undermining the outstanding men and women of the USA military with your no-show) are in desperate need of this review, a column written by Mike Rosen every few years during the election season:

"Why Party Trumps Person". (from 2004)

With just 80 days to go before the election, it's time for my quadrennial column on party vs. person. I've been offering and updating this polemic for more than 20 years. For veteran voters, this may be review; for rookies, perhaps, a new concept.

A time-honored cliche heard every election year goes something like this: "I'm an independent thinker; I vote the person, not the party." This pronouncement is supposed to demonstrate open-mindedness and political sophistication on the part of the pronouncer. It's your vote, cast it any way you like - or not at all. But idealism and naivete about the way our electoral process and system of government works shouldn't be mistaken for wisdom or savvy.

For better or worse, we have a two-party system. And party trumps person. Either a Republican, George W. Bush, or a Democrat, John Kerry, is going to be elected president in November. No one else has a chance.

Not Ralph Nader, not the Libertarian candidate, nor the Communist, nor the Green. Minor party candidates are sometimes spoilers - like Nader costing Gore the presidency in 2000 - but they don't win presidential elections. Ross Perot got 20 million popular votes in 1992, and exactly zero Electoral College votes.

In Europe's multiparty, parliamentary democracies, governing coalitions are formed after an election. In our constitutional republic, the coalitions are formed first.

The Republican coalition includes, for the most part, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros), individualists who prefer limited government, pro-market and pro-business forces, believers in American exceptionalism and a strong national defense, social-issues conservatives and supporters of traditional American values.

The Democratic coalition is an alliance of collectivists, labor unions (especially the teachers' unions), government workers, academics, plaintiffs-lawyers, lower- and middle-income net tax-receivers, most minorities, feminists, gays, enviros, and activists for various anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-military, anti-gun, one-world causes.

I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, the coalition will be served.

A Democratic president, whether a liberal or a moderate (conservative Democrats, if any still exist, can't survive the nominating process), can operate only within the political boundaries of his party and its coalition. The party that wins the presidency gets to staff all the discretionary positions in the executive and judicial branches of government. Members of its coalition are awarded vital policy-making government jobs, judgeships, ambassadorships and appointments to boards and commissions, as well as a host of plum jobs handed out to thosewho have political IOUs to cash in.

A vote for Bush is a vote for the Republican agenda and conservative players in key posts. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the influence of the National Education Association, the National Organization for Women, the American Civil Liberties Union and the likes of Al Sharpton and Michael Moore.

The legislative branch is no different. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a figurative nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins. That victory carries with it control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.

Now, let's say you're a registered Republican voter who clearly prefers the Republican philosophy of governance. And you're a good-natured, well-intentioned person who happens to like an individual Democrat, a Senate candidate, who's somewhat conservative. You decide to cross party lines and vote for him.

As it turns out, he wins, beating a Republican and giving the Democrats a one-vote majority, 51-49, in the U.S. Senate.

Congratulations! You just got Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton as key committee chairs, and a guarantee that your Republican legislative agenda will be stymied.

That's the way the process works. Does this mean that in a two-party system like ours it comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils? You bet it does. That's not to say that either party is really "evil," that's just an expression.

If we had 280 million custom-tailored minor parties, everyone could find his perfect match.

But that's not practical.

You can be a purist and cast your vote symbolically with a boutique party, or be a player and settle for the least imperfect of the Republican or Democrat alternatives.

Your vote, your choice.

[ajolympian2004]

Yeah, I hope you are right. Unfortunately I've heard a few conservatives in the blogosphere, in the media and people I know state how staying at home this time around is the best plan. It's a lame strategy.

[DManA]

I would never withhold my vote from a real conservative.

[ajolympian2004]

So what state are you in? Who are your candidates???

[ajolympian2004]

I got it! You are in Minnesota.

So you are thinking about staying home vs. voting for (R) Mark Kennedy??? That's a potential pickup for Republicans. The ultimate goal is to reach 60 in the Senate so all judges, conservative legislation, etc. will get an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

In all the races that matter, primaries are generally won by the candidate anointed by the party.

You are wrong. We had great proof of it this year here in Iowa during the primary. We got rid of RINOs. Now, the conservatives selected just have to get elected. One thing I've noticed about you cut-and-run conservatives is that you are a very miserable bunch. You can't see the good in anything. You have a lot in common with liberals.

[DManA]

Our former Senator Rod Gramms is running for the house in our district (soporifically lamb I'm afraid ). I'll be voting for him without any hesitation. Kennedy just barely fits into my criteria so I'll be voting for him too.

[pgyanke]

Another take on the same topic (shameless personal plug that it is):

Why Should Christians Vote for Democrats?

[Oberon]

One thing I've noticed about you cut-and-run conservatives is that you are a very miserable bunch. You can't see the good in anything. You have a lot in common with liberals.

I've accused you of nothing, Cgg...nor will I hold this impoliteness against you.

[Zack Nguyen]

Oh, I'll be voting Republican this fall. I'm not champing at the bit like I was in 2004, but the wife and I will vote. The Republicans have got to turn it around. The good news is that two years is a lifetime in politics. But regardless of what happens in 2006, the Republican Party must not learn the "lesson" that a leftward tilt wins elections. If that results in a Guiliani being nominated at any level it will mean unmitigated disaster for the party, and for the country. It will mean the fracturing of the Republican coalition.

[ajolympian2004]

That's exactly what has to happen. And it can take years to accomplish and their are so many variables including retirements, the bob neys and mark foleys of the world, etc.

I always wonder if our best candidates are the many great nationally syndicated and local talk show hosts all across our great country. They certainly are the best spokesmen and women for our side.

[Matchett-PI]

Congratulations. More babies will die in the womb because of illogical, emotion-driven people like you seeing to it that the RATS gain power.

[ajolympian2004]

I'm right there with you. There are many reasons to be unhappy with the national Republican party and President Bush on a number of issues.

In the end my vote (maybe 90% of the reason) this year comes down to what is best for the super outstanding men and women of our US military. Which party wants to cut'n'run, reduce / slash defense spending, etc. I know that on balance that means I must show up and vote (R) right down the ballot.

[Defiant]

Great post. One additional comment--the 2 party system is mandated by our "winner take all" method of selecting Reps, Senators and the President, as well as local officials. It's basic game theory, you might start with 6 parties of people who are closer ideologically, but then they start banding together with a goal of getting enough people in their coalition to reach 50 percent of the vote, until there are only 2 parties left.

In a parliamentary system, minor parties can stay "pure" and then have influence when the government is formed, but not in ours. So people just need to figure out which they are, Republican or Democrat, and vote for their party. Independents are just people who can't figure out which they are.

[umgud]

My argument is that a bad republican is better than a good democrat because even good democrats add to their majority. Pablum or not, I'll stand by this.

[savedbygrace]

You're going to stand by your wild, unsupported, and illogical claim that if the Republicans lose the majority, the Dims will "take your guns away, cause paid abortions for all, raise your taxes, risk the nation's security, etc."?????

Okie dokie.

[umgud]

That depends on whether they gain and then retain a majority post '08, neither of which I predict. A vote for any dem helps them on their way.

[Apple Blossom]

You will be taking whatever the dems want to dish out if they win because you didn't vote. Did you not get the article?

The democrat agenda will still be put in place due to coercion of the "new guy to get on board" with the party. Then, what you will have in place will be farther away from your beliefs than if the "not conservative enough" republican candidate had won. At least with him in office he can be influenced by conservative republicans who can remind him what votes got him there.

[LexBaird]

You are wrong. We had great proof of it this year here in Iowa during the primary. We got rid of RINOs

Okay, what do you do when it happens like it did in CA? Here, the CAGOP brokered a deal and endorsed a candidate for Gov. before the primary, and let it be known that any candidate opposing their anointed would be a pariah and financially punished. In 2004, 100% of the incumbents won back their seats (except Condit. Can't remember if he withdrew or lost to another Dem) and no open seats changed party. California, on both sides of the aisle, has become government for the incumbent and by the incumbent, good, bad or insane, and Lord help those who oppose the Machine. You have to die or pull a Condit or Cunningham grade malfeasance not to hold your seat for eternity.

[1035rep]

It also shows 5% voting Democrat.  Just goes to show that anyone can post here.  Those 5% faux conservatives have been very vocal here in the past weeks and will continue until the election.

Democrat
5.0%

At least 5% doing the Gloomwhoringblogpimpery here on Free Republic.

 

[jjm2111]

I vote for whom I want. The GOP sucks, sucks, sucks!!! For 6 yrs, they had control of Congress and held the presidency and spent my tax dollars worse than the democrats. There has not been ONE conservative initiative since the tax cut and GWB can't even bring himself to call a spade a spade when it comes to Islam. "War on Terror" my heiny.

Furthermore the comment about "not supporting our troops" by not voting GOP is such horsehockey.