Would You Ever Vote For A Democrat? (Is The Author Serious? Never!!!)

Townhall.com ^ | August 19, 2018 | Erich Reimer

[Kaslin]

There once was a time in American history – in fact perhaps for the bulk of it– when cross-party voting was nothing special but rather the norm. Electoral results would vary wildly as voters deviated wildly from their partisan loyalties and even the power of party on our elected representatives was far weaker.

Nowadays the mere thought of cross-party voting baffles the minds of most on either side of the aisle, as if it were an unspeakable heresy or like a Yankees fan hoping one game that the Red Sox win it.

Part of the reason for this is that the impact of party-line voting has changed as the parties have become more ideologically homogenous. In past decades you could very well vote for a truly pro-Second Amendment and pro-life Democrat or a pro-regulation and pro-welfare-state Republican. In 2018 our parties hold their cards and Overton windows much tighter, for example as we see with regular sieges and fierce purges against remaining pro-life Democrats.

Indeed, the increasing ideological lockstep of our political parties is also a reflection of how our parties have gone from big-tent coalitions, less a representation of beliefs but more of location and culture, to truly seemingly ideas-based organizations.

For example, for much of the Democratic Party’s 20^thcentury history, it was based on an urban machine network that essentially supported the communities it was based in through patronage, mutual aid, and protection, particularly for the waves of immigrants that came to our shores during America’s industrial growth years.

In contrast, the Republican Party retained a high-brow core that also united with farmers, businessmen, and the intellectual elites, with its ever-shifting bases also including prohibitionists, isolationists, civil rights advocates, pro-immigration champions, and others.

All of this seems incredible to us today when we think that once upon a time it was the Democrats who were the party of those who wanted to promote, for example, God in our public life, immigration restriction, and an aggressive American foreign policy and it was Republicans who fought for secularism and trust-busting.

As for how this is all relevant to our current debates? It is a historical reminder that our two-party system is constantly evolving and changing, as the natural ‘market’ reaction of the political big tents to the underlying passions and beliefs of the electorate turn and morph.

On one hand, the ideological unity of our political parties makes them much more coherent organizing vehicles for certain worldviews and policy goals. However, I believe the negative effects are far more, due specifically to the way human nature works.

As we’ve seen in other countries, where often parties are less big-tent but more ideological, the organizations experience extraordinary instability in terms of their ability to keep power and relevance in the public square as the issues of today may become irrelevant tomorrow, leading to extensive renaming, rebranding, and reorganizing.

Furthermore, groupthink is powerful and real. When a party adopts a certain ideological stand clearly, it inherently causes the people within it to be pushed to conform to a series of tenets that in the end, few may fully agree with but with whom voicing disagreement is difficult.

This effect stifles debate and disconnects our discourse and policymaking process from actually looking rationally at the most effective laws, regulations, and norms to promote and implement, as well as reflecting what the population actually wants to see done.

We end up with a disconcerted and distorted discourse, with the worst potential results being like in the Soviet Union where the elites would battle endlessly over the tiniest, and fundamentally most irrelevant, ideological line in the treatises of their ‘great leaders and thinkers.

In the Soviet Union, this process became so twisted that entire completely imagined paradigms arose out of it, such as the pseudoscience of Lysenkoism, as the power of groupthink and towing the line took its course.

Ideology has meaning and it seems our current political climate is giving it more power. However, in the end, the world is extraordinarily complex and always changing, making a combination of fundamental values and pragmatic analysis and implementation the best in my opinion – and indeed historically what our country and its people have embraced.

The idea of Conservative Democrats or Progressive Republicans seem like oxymorons to us in our current political climate but there still may be a day when those terms go from the dustbin of history to reality once again. In the meantime, our newly empowered parties who have seemingly won their own internal battles now participate in what is fundamentally a flawed and losing for the country, war against each other.

After all, President Donald Trump smashed ideological orthodoxy to pieces when he ran and won the GOP nomination. Even the most seemingly set-in-stone things can be surprisingly brittle and hollow.

[Kaslin]

I know, my husband did two tours in Vietnam

[arthurus]

I voted for one once for school superintendent. The alternative was a Republican good ole boy and guaranteed to put the School Board in the headlines at some time for cooked books or chasing secretaries and high school girls.
MacAlister turned out to be the only school board supe in several decades and since to NOT draw any scandal and to get and keep the books in apple pie order. He is black and the local goodoleboy Republicans had not been paying attention so did not actually campaign and Mr. Mac got in. The teachers, most of whom had previously opposed him, campaigned eagerly for him to be re-elected but the Network was in high gear that time.
In smaller cities the goodoleboys belong to whichever party has traditionally run things.

My wife had Mrs MacAlister for principal for a few years and she did for that office what Mr. Mac did for the school board. She was very firm and very good with the students and with the teachers.

[KarlInOhio]

As we’ve seen in other countries, where often parties are less big-tent but more ideological, the organizations experience extraordinary instability in terms of their ability to keep power and relevance in the public square as the issues of today may become irrelevant tomorrow, leading to extensive renaming, rebranding, and reorganizing.

How much of that comes from proportional representation in parliament rather than the candidate with a plurality of the vote winning in each district. In those countries forming a new party which gets 10% of the vote could end up with the new party as part of a ruling coalition. Here, your new party getting 10% will result in your ideological enemies winning in a landslide. That promotes stagnation of the two parties.

[chris37]

Please invite him to your state so he can be your senator then.

I won’t be voting for him in 2022 either.

[Responsibility2nd]

Local elections only.

[Teacher317]

I look at the person, not their Party. There's no shortage of Republicans that I adamantly oppose.

That being said, I have not heard of any Dem recently that was against the PC nonsense, against Identity politics, for the flag, for race-neutral laws, for lower taxes, for lower regulation, against preferences for non-Americans over Americans, for pride in our nation, for individualism over government dependence, for economic freedom, etc. If one comes along, and is opposed by one (of any Party) who isn't, then they'll get my vote.

It could happen... maybe even in my lifetime. Only morons say "never".

[Dr. Sivana]

Holding your nose and voting for the R is a better solution imho.

I disagree. Some of these Republicans will go HARDER left if they can take our votes for granted. Bruce Rauner of Illinois is a good example. They may see 2 or 3% of votes that thoughtfully chose against them and behave a bit better. In 80% of elections, the Republican you vote for is either an obvious winner or loser, and either way, your vote is nothing more than a declaration of support or non-support. Recently, I voted in a Sheriff run-off in Georgia where neither candidate was acceptable, and I entered a blank ballot, as no write-in was available. It was the only way to show I care enough to vote, but that neither candidate had earned mine.

[Snickering Hound]

Alton Parker.

And I'm pretty sure there are Freepers old enough to have had the choice between him and Roosevelt.

The first Roosevelt...

[Teacher317]

Zell Miller was the last Dem I can recall having respect for.

[Stevenc131]

Local election, maybe. Back in the 80s I worked as Data Processing Director for a Democratic Clerk of Courts/County Comptroller who was a great guy and very loyal to the people who worked for him. He retired and was replaced by a Republican. The Republican was a real jerk and didn’t care about anyone but himself, and I resigned right away.

[mountainlion]

John Hanoi Kerry called all Viet Nam veterans baby killers and war criminals which needs apologies many demonicrats need to be jailed before any serious considerations would be made.

[Conserv]

I emailed Senator Saxby(who will pick the vidalias) Chambliss and told him I was going to leave his oval BLANK.

Straight Republican, except for his.

If farmers can’t get vidalias out of the fields without illegals, then LET THEM ROT!!

It was no surprise that he chose not to run for re-election.

[kalee]

Last and only Democrat I ever voted for was Sam Nunn. Never again.

[chris37]

There are some truly awful elected Repubics out there.

I’m not a real big fan of the GOP in general, mostly because its men are just a bunch of metrosexual sissies.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

Depends on the Democrat, and the Republican he/she is running against.

I would vote for a Joe Manchin or Tusli Gabbard before I would for the likes of Flake and He who Shall Not Be Named.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

Depends on the Democrat, and the Republican he/she is running against.

I would vote for a Joe Manchin or Tusli Gabbard before I would for the likes of Flake and He who Shall Not Be Named.

[Don Corleone]

For example, for much of the Democratic Party’s 20thcentury history, it was based on an urban machine network that essentially supported the communities it was based in through patronage, mutual aid, and protection, particularly for the waves of immigrants that came to our shores during America’s industrial growth years.

For example, Boston, New York, Detroit, Chicago,St Louis,Kansas City...etc....etc...!

All on their way to becoming Venezuela clones.

[Conserv]

My dad also voted for Sam Nunn.

Nunn was an old fashioned conservative dem who was very strong on military issues.... which helps when you have a large Air Force base in your county.

My dad was a retired Air Force Colonel(30 yrs).

It was quite hysterical when Michelle Nunn’s campaign thought those same people(like my dad) would vote for her liberal a$$.

[OpusatFR]

I am a democrat who now registers as an Indy.

I have been in several democrat campaigns over the decades and will never, ever vote for the Marxist and Maoists who are now running the DNC.

And don’t tell me I don’t know Communism. 30 years of study of Russia, the USSR and successor states says I do.

[CodeToad]

I vote for Colorado Democrat governor John Hickenlooper (aka Chickenpooper).

He, like the Republican governor before him, Bill Owens, is all about business and a free environment to prosper. Of course, Hick is a softy and couldn’t even execute a deathrow inmate, but Hick has been great for the Colorado economy.

The Republican candidate that ran against Hick was Dan Maes, who is a Chicago liberal put up by the idiotic Colorado eGOP. Maes was corrupt and was in it for himself like the rest of the Colorado eGOP.

BTW, the Colorado eGOP is still against Trump. They publicly state their resentment for him.