iPolitics: Additional Party Legitimacy- Part 1: Voter Logic

 

In his 2004 book America, Jon Stewart makes the following point about today’s two major political parties:

 

“The Republican Party is the party of nostalgia.  It seeks to return America to a simpler, more innocent and moral past that never actually existed.  The Democrats are utopians.  They seek to create an America so fair and non-judgmental that life becomes an unbearable series of apologies.  Together, the two parties function like giant down comforters, allowing the candidates to disappear into the enveloping softness, protecting them from exposure to the harsh weather of independent thought.” (pg. 107) 

 

Independent thought.  iPolitics.  There are Ipads, Iphones, Ipods, will Smith movies- I, Robot and I am Legend.  Individuality starts with an I.  That is where I start.

 

I adore Stewart’s practical irreverence, and his witty and disarming smarts.  Too bad he’s not an Independent who could humorously justify to the masses the value in casting a vote that makes more sense than continuing to vote for the status quo each election.  A citizen’s vote should be more productive; anyone over the age of four knows there is little use in using a white crayon on a white page.

 

I dismissed conservatives years ago as having no sense of their own hypocrisy.  They tout the republican staples of personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, while being unaware of how selectively they apply those staples.  Conservatives are only interested in protecting personal freedoms from being infringed upon by the government until someone they don’t know wants to have an abortion, two members of the same sex want to get married to each other, or a nicotine addict wants to pollute a bar, restaurant or casino with smoke that others will invariably breathe.  Their self-righteous ideas significantly impact the freedoms of those who are either societally conscious, irresponsible, or disadvantaged (abortion), GLBT members, (same sex) or employees or patrons who do not want to suffer from second hand smoke inhalation.  Conservatives consider being fiscally responsible only when they aren’t in office or when they can protect the bottom lines of corporations or the richest 10% of U.S. citizens from a capital gains or progressive income tax. 

 

Having learned that the typical conservative’s idea of fiscal responsibility has the shelf life of a package of strawberries . . . the Independent’s issue with the democrats should be just as pronounced.  The democrat’s willingness to hand our country over to the unassimilated or entitlement program abusers, for votes = power, has made our American financial house look like the changing room at Kohl’s after an indecisive, unemployed, color blind guy on a budget is done shopping for interview clothes.  It’s a mess.  Fraud is rampant- pants can pass themselves off as 67% polyester, or as having a 32-inch inseam.  Dress shirts take more time to extricate from their pin-infested existence than the bug collection of the average 4^th grader.  The two major political parties, and those they cater to, are also a mess, but the average voter doesn’t seem to realize it.  If they did, they would mend their ways.  So why don’t they?  Here are some fairly suspect reasons people might give for avoiding the reasonable course of voting for Independent candidates, along with a fairly reasonable rejoinder:

 

1. Independents cost other candidates elections- I read a Joel Stein column on the back page of the March 10, 2008 issue of Time magazine (about the then forthcoming 2008 election) with the heading “How Sorry is this Guy? If Ralph Nader wants any votes in this election, he should cop to the last one he screwed up.” (pg. 72).  I wondered why Stein would write an entire column about how easily someone like Nader could be dismissed.  Isn’t it easier to dismiss someone if you never actually pay any attention to them?  According to Stein, and thousands of other political pundits, Nader “[took] key votes from Al Gore.”  People on food stamps, receiving housing aid, who haven’t worked in five years, but are fully capable, feel less entitled to the bounty the U.S. government provides, and believe me, they have been conditioned to, than a republican or democrat running for political office.
    
   Stein continued:  “Nader just can’t admit that he’s at least a little responsible for Gore’s loss.”  Stein finds Nader culpable for what we, as Americans, were put through between 2001-2008.  It isn’t the Independent’s fault that the major parties put up two very average candidates in 2000; they put up pretty average candidates every four years.  I am not surprised it goes unrecognized by the voters.  Gore had every chance to prevail over Bush, the rhetorical juggernaut, but was unable to do so.  That isn’t Nader’s fault.  Stein also contends:  “. . . It’s important for people who feel they’re not being heard to have the option to vote for insane, incapable candidates . . . a two-party system is designed to eliminate extreme ideas . . .”  That brings me to the typical voter’s second objection . . .
    
2. Independent candidates are kooky and crazy (code words for insane and incapable).  This objection is easy to counter.  Anyone ever heard of Dennis Kucinich- democrat, Larry Craig- republican, Michelle Bachman- republican, Rod Blagojevich- democrat.  Extreme ideas?  Peculiar behaviors?  The sitting vice-president whispered an expletive into the president’s ear next to a live microphone, a device that is thought to amplify sound.  You would think that Independents all looked like Carrot Top or acted like Pit Bull (I’m embarrassed I even know who he is, but not as embarrassed as if I were caught using this as a reason to continue to vote for a democrat or republican).  Listen to the Hannity, Limbaugh, or Chris Matthews types and you would think that all Independents offer a twerk in response to every question put to them in debates event organizers condescended to invite them to.  The craziness of infidelity offers these examples: Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, and John Edwards. 
    
   I don’t have the space to enumerate the list of candidates from the so called “two major parties” who acted inappropriately in one way or another- F.D.R. tried to pack the supreme court and Nixon resigned before being impeached for the Watergate scandal.  The RNC reimbursed a member of the committee nearly $2000 after a night spent at a bondage-themed nightclub a few years back.  Clinton had sex with an intern in the oval office, G.W. Bush ordered illegal wiretapping of phones and Obama claimed executive privilege in the Fast and Furious scandal, which involved the sale of licensed firearms to gun mules who may distribute them to Mexican drug cartel leaders.  I wonder how every Independent can be dismissed, by the voters and the media, for being different, and republicans and democrats can continue to be rewarded, with political victories, for all being the same.
    
3. Independents don’t have a chance to win.  This rationale would make more sense if the American public were choosing the high school prom king.  This is quite probably the most obvious case of a self-fulfilling prophecy I’ve ever seen.  I explained to a former colleague who referred to this as his reason for not voting for Independents when he was somewhat inclined toward Dean Barkley in 2008.  I explained to him, that in fact, an Independent does not have a chance to win if you don’t vote for them.  If 10% of the voters who thought this way would amend their thinking, the Independent popular vote would begin to grow each election, locally and nationally, and people would legitimize more options, be able to complain about three or four candidates, instead of two, and would see the flaw in their- for lack of a better term- logic. 
    
4. A vote for an Independent is a wasted vote.  This one isn’t that different from #s 1 and 3.  After being informed that Nader would receive my vote in the 2008 presidential election, I received a wry-smiled response:  “So, you’re wasting your vote.”  Typically, I vote my conscience and do not feel compelled to choose between the lesser of two evils.  He let me know he was voting for McCain.  That evening, I asked one of his relatives the same question.  His son was voting for Obama.  I leaned forward, touched his father gently on the shoulder and said- “it looks like you will be wasting your vote too.”  If neither one of them voted, it wouldn’t make any more of a difference as my well-intentioned vote.  If a voter merely chooses from among the two major parties every election, and the nation as a whole continues to be only 17-25% satisfied with congress, year in and year out, it looks like a quorum of voters, since 38-50% of the electorate actually participate, are wasting their vote. 
    
   Consider going to Applebee’s once every four years, and only having the same two dishes (vegetable lasagna and medium rare chicken) from which to choose, only choosing to eat, and pay for, the same one every time.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to find out if there is a different eatery, where something a little more palatable would be served?  Folks, if voting for democrats and republicans is so unappetizing, as ¾ of the country is chronically dissatisfied with congress, why not try a candidate from a party that raises the level of issue debate, someone who is a little more filling.  A “wasted” vote is something Jeff Spicoli would cast for class president after he has taken a couple hits from his doobie.
    
5.  Mob logic, a further discussion of #4.  Consider that millions of voters are more disgusted with the continued failure of the democrats and republicans than Yoda was when Luke Skywalker couldn’t use the force to lift his X-Wing out of the swamp on Dagobah in The "Empire Strikes Back".   This is the corner the conscientious voter has been backed into by a typical voter’s logic- A)  Many of the self-righteous voters deride and belittle anyone who refrains from voting for any reason, even when the non-voter has no clue what the candidates stand for; B) The conscientious voter cannot vote for someone that doesn’t have a chance to win (see #3) as that is a wasted vote (see #4) and we wouldn’t want to cost someone the election (see #1)- as Nader and Perot were blamed for doing in 2000 and 1992 respectively;  C) The conscientious voter may mundanely vote for a democrat or a republican because they have to vote, and they have to vote for a candidate that has a chance to win.  If the conscientious voter chooses a democrat over a republican and the democrat is perceived to be ineffectual, is having intercourse with interns or unconstitutionally wiretapping phone lines, or invading countries without congressional approval, then the voter is said to have only himself to blame.  For, of course, the duped voter should take the responsibility for any action, or inaction, of the politician who “earned” his vote.  Ultimately, voters are the only people really held accountable for the mistakes of the politicians whether we voted at all, or voted for one of two candidates rather than the other.  Some voters who cast protest votes, with principles, have longer range goals and are simply waiting for the rest of the disgruntled citizenry to catch up.  Ten million protest votes will likely secure for the country multiple additional political parties that may help hold the other two accountable.
    
6. Voting for change that makes a difference.  Almost every politician who has run for elected office has used the word “change” to describe how their approach to solving difficult problems would be different than the incumbent’s or predecessor’s.   Heck, Woody Boyd, on the advice of Frasier, used that as his slogan when he ran for city council on Cheers.  And he won, so we know it works. 
    
   Every two years, many voters, if they consider the majority party had every chance to put through some meaningful legislation, but failed, and the voters will exchange them for republicans, just as they had exchanged republicans for democrats two or four years earlier.  This result is obvious, except to the average voter who will not question their logic or make a call to their temporal lobe (the part of the brain that controls memory).  I am not sure what kind of “Groundhog Day” hell the average voter adores, but if I picked up the same kind of apple, and it was always infested with worms, I’d pick one from the tree, like Sean Connery advised a very green Kevin Costner to do in the “Untouchables”.  Voting for change makes it seem as if the voter has some control, as if those who take this approach are all converting to Catholicism for the day and seek to punish the party in power by sending them to some imagined hell that even Dante never detailed.  But neither party is ever really punished, as they know that redemption is only an election or two away.  A 2-4 year stint in purgatory, as everyone knows, is very intolerable.
    

Note:  I declined to capitalize words like democrats, republicans and supreme court on purpose.  For the same reason, I don’t capitalize the word god.  The-can-of-worms justifications for those decisions isn’t important enough to get into with this subject matter.  Until words like “Progressive”, “Independent”, “Populist” and “Libertarian”, when they are being used to introduce or clarify a party, movement, or specific candidate are capitalized in kind, my capitalization-strike will continue.