Ipolitics: Part 2

 
I am sam- sam I am, I Robot, I-ambic pentameter, I am legend, eye for an eye, bart simpson’s I-corumba (embarrassed enlightenment)

 

Foolish Consistency:  The Reasons Voters Continue to Make the Same Mistakes

 

Note:  This article also appeared on the 2^nd Congressional Districts website some years ago- 2010-ish.  The meaning in the use of the word “Independent” should be broadened to include any third party (Populist, Progressive, Independent, Green, Libertarian).  However, I’ll stop well short of applying it to Socialists and Communists, who are in a different category.

  

Last time- I offered 6 reasons why a voter, otherwise inclined to vote for an Independence party candidate, might withhold a meaningful vote for a party that might actually do this nation some good.  This time, I will list some reasons why people, whose convictions are often based on far more narrow-minded assertions, proudly continue to vote for republicans or democrats. 

 

There is, after all, something to be said for consistency.  Lucky for us, a pretty bright guy- Ralph Waldo Emerson, did say something about it, namely this: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”  Some think that Emerson was speaking ill of consistency, but it is rather “a foolish consistency” he devalued.  Consider that the Emerson quote and the Einstein quote from last time, about insanity, work in tandem.  We may suspect that the act of continuing to vote for the status quo isn’t good for us, yet we consistently continue to do it.

 

It is absurd to believe that democrats and republicans, together, or separately, have adequately imagined or implemented a solution to every political issue that confronts American citizens and politicians alike.  I will call upon Jon Stewart again for the rational justification for finding fault with the ideologies of two of the other political parties; he put that sentiment this way: 

 

“Each party has a platform, a . . . menu of beliefs making up its worldview. The candidate can choose one of the two platforms, but remember – no substitutions. For example, do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion. Luckily, all human opinion falls neatly into one of the two clearly defined camps. Thus, the two-party system elegantly reflects the bichromatic rainbow that is American political thought.” (America, pg. 108)

 

Here are some reasons why democratic and republican voters have remained so consistent.  I cannot claim that these are all of the reasons:

 They are voting for ghosts.  John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan probably aren’t walking into an election any time soon.  If they do, I’m sure democrats and republicans, respectively, will vote for them.  I’ve heard Reagan’s name thrown around so often lately that you would think he created the world in six days and we’re just waiting for his messianic son to deliver us from evil.  Even President Obama genuflected at the Reagan political altar during the 2008 presidential election. 

1. Consistency’s hobgoblins.  People are habitual creatures and will continue to do things which are harmful to them, like smoke, eat bad foods, or vote for the same types of candidates every election.  Is there a legacy reward clause for not letting our former selves down, for consistently voting for a democrat for 30 years straight?  Worse yet, perhaps voters don’t want to let the dear spirit of their father down, who was a democrat all his life.  There is no reward for ancestral futility of this magnitude- only punishment.  A quality sticker that’s ideal location is the bumper of a 2007 Prius that reads: “Liberal” probably won’t be suitably transferred to a granite headstone after a lifetime of ineffectual voting.
    
2. Promises, Promises.  This is the frozen hamburger patty of reasons.  Restaurants indicate that they have a ½ pound burger on the menu.  That is only the size before it is cooked.  The likely fulfillment of a politician’s promises diminish the longer the reason you voted for them is left on the grill.  If what you ordered based on the picture on the menu looks nothing like what you got on your tray, try something else.  Consistently voting for major party candidates when they don’t represent your beliefs, is like showing up to a party of pygmies every two years, and asking if you can borrow someone’s pants.
    
3. I Robot.  Say these words slowly in your head using your best robot voice- Limbaugh said that Obama is a socialist . . . .  Must vote for republican . . . must vote republican.
    
4. Issues.  I have a relative who votes for candidates based on the issue of abortion.  If you aren’t identifying how a politician feels on at least your five biggest issues, you are wasting your vote, especially when it is an issue that is largely out of their control.  Just a quick follow up- when a woman is already pregnant- I tend to not want to tell her what she can do with her own body, unless removing your larynx is something with which you want a woman to have a say. 
    
5. I feel therefore I am.  These pundits, prognosticators and talk show hosts are far too convincingly animated in their passion against the other side, far too radioactive; they yuyulate more heartily than a soccer play-by-play announcer-  GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!  Consider Limbaugh, Hannity, and, locally (MN), Jason Lewis.  As we all know, vindictiveness is always the source of truth.  Some voters feel compelled to vote for the candidate the host’s vehemently endorse- I suppose because the foolishly consistent voter believes the talk show host has properly vetted the candidate of his choice.  To clarify- vetting in this case means: does the candidate have a giant “D” or “R” right next to their name (see #10 below).  It is unfortunate that the average voter hasn’t recognized that the talk show host has even fewer goals to announce than the soccer game announcer, (only one really)- to whine about the other side until the voter submits out of some collective negativity obligation quotient.  Typically, the average real soccer match ends 1-0.  After two hours of listening to your average political radio persona, with the conservative or liberal using his brain as a megaphone, the game ends just as uneventfully.  Seems like a waste for all of that diametrically opposed brow-beating in the political game to end with so few highlights; it is too bad that no one keeping score knows who is winning.
    
6. Change, again?  Yes, again.  I can’t believe either of these two parties can say they can offer change to the voter.  One party is nearly as old as the country itself and the other can trace its roots back to before the Civil War.  But change is another thing that keeps working, so they keep using it.  Imagine there is a boy, who after four years is tired of climbing the same tree; telling him he can change the experience by finding a different route to the same highest point, so he can see all the same things, isn’t change.  Tell him the trees he’ll want to scale in 20 years will require that he plant them now, so his son can climb them.
    
7. The bad times are here to stay.  The talk show hosts very adeptly excuse their own side’s flaws, and there are many, while accentuating the missteps of the other.  After all, like the eye, political blowhards can’t focus on two things at once.  The likelihood of us finding a well-meaning, objective cable news or political radio talk show host in this country are comparable to the odds that another Icelandic volcano will erupt this year, causing thousands of commercial flights to be cancelled.  Determining the least guilty of political vagary from among the democrats and republicans is like trying to determine the loser in a fight between two computer generated swarms of gnats in a future James Cameron movie.  Each side proclaims the sound judgment of their own side, without excusing their own faults.  They excuse their own faults by not referring to them.
    
8. Unidentifiable hypocrisy.  Chris Tucker from the first Rush Hour movie, which is the George H.W. Bush, “Read my Lips” comment on steroids- “Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?”  However, I’m pretty sure Tucker wasn’t promising to not raise taxes.  No politician, that a democrat or republican voter would support, would lie and no conservative or liberal talk show host would steer the voter the wrong way.  As an exercise- listen to Olberman, Mathews, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Jason Lewis, and count the number of times their party is to blame for something.  “The best defense is a good offense,” say many in the sports world.  The combined acrimony fueled by accusations and rhetoric spewed out by liberals and conservatives would power all kinds of New York city landmarks and energize subway sludge to come alive, ready made with evil intent in a colossal Ghostbusters sequel we’ll never pay the money to see, but somehow, in the political realm, we keep paying, quite literally to see the same disaster which is way over budget.  People that hypocritical are without the one thing they should be saddled with in order to recover from rote hatred that intense, not a physical mirror, but some self-reflection. 

There are frauds, hypocrites, ego-maniacs, sociopaths, thieves, cheaters, and elitists everywhere.  Most democrats and republicans know virtually nothing about self-reflection, and have no concept of individual responsibility, or objectivity.  The democrats ignorantly defend the abuses of entitlement programs (often by ignoring them) as ignominiously as the republicans arrogantly protect all aspects of the free market.  I know actual people who think that republicans are completely blameless in any political issue anyone could think of, even issues that haven’t been invented yet; Tweety Bird didn’t even think Sylvester was that bad a cat, and he was swallowed whole four times every six minutes.

 

    10. R and D.  Those don’t stand for research and development, though the typical voter is in dire need of some as it relates to the future of their favored political parties.  No, R and D stand for republican and democrat.  Some people lend more credence to a politician’s opinions depending on what letter precedes or follows their name.  The fairly recent cry of conservative talk show hosts, and certain republican politicians, for more conservatism in the republican platform may confound some voters. 

A few months ago, a former colleague, noting that I used the words republican and conservative nearly interchangeably, mentioned that there was a difference between them.  I replied- any conservative politician who is sincerely concerned about being misrepresented as a typical republican, should just go ahead and form another party.  But they won’t, and the reason why is because they would lose votes (see numbers 1 and 2 above).  The conservative in them doesn’t want to lose for being both almost unrecognizably nostalgic and progressive, and feel they can only win by remaining sneakily affiliated with the republicans.  Conservatives should have the courage of their convictions, or accept the liability that is an affiliation with the republican party.

 

     11.  The alternative.  People contend, erroneously by the way, that the Independents don’t have a platform that obviously distinguishes it from the other two.  Even if the principles and platform of the IP were exactly the same as the reps and dems in every meaningful area, wouldn’t it be worth a few votes to get some IP candidates elected to see if they could do something the status quo only promise to do?  The answer is no- (see #12) directly below.  Would you take a test that meant you earned another $5,000 a year and not study for it?  You simply cannot have the opinion that there is no difference between what types of ideas additional party candidates have vs. what the two major party platforms represent.  If you have that opinion, you shouldn’t have a vote, just like when you don’t show up for work, you don’t get paid. 


 12.  Mandate.  Independence party candidates and politicians won’t be considered successes, because there is not a healthy Independent constituency whether from the public or the politicians.  An Independent politician, until he is joined by a dozen of his like-minded friends in a legislature, will be like the Lone Ranger in the governor’s mansion.  Former Governor Ventura was just that.  Admittedly, half of Ventura’s problems were of his own causing.  The democrats and republicans colluding together to ensure his failure didn’t help.  Unless, and until, multiple Independents are elected in a state legislature and across the country, no one will be able to say whether a viable third party is a success or failure.  As a society, we embraced the pet rock, the Rubik’s Cube and ABBA, but voting meaningfully for an Independent is beneath us.  Very sensible.


   13.  The media made me do it.  Aside from political extremists like Limbaugh, Olberman, Matthews, O’Reilly, Hannity and Lewis, among many others, the somewhat less offensive media, both local and national, lead viewers to believe there are only two candidates running for any elective office.  Dean Barkley spent a fraction of the money of Coleman and Franken for the 2008 U.S. Senate seat and still got 15% of the vote, but CNN never put his name, image, or popular vote count on its board on election night.  People say that the news doesn’t cover Independents because they don’t poll well; they don’t poll well because the media doesn’t cover them.  The logic is as simple as the rules for tetherball, a game people stopped playing in the 1970s; too bad the media’s foolishly consistent game-playing is still going on.   


The print media is no less restrictive on who shall be covered in their news or opinion sections.  In an article which appeared in the Opinion Exchange section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune on April 18, 2010 “True Believers & Trail Blazers” D.J. Price writes about how wide open is the Minnesota governor’s race, but neglects to mention a single Independent candidate until the last two paragraphs of the article, and then only dismissively.  If the election is filled with such an abundance of wildcards and the race is to be so unpredictably interesting, why wait so long to include a candidate that could help decide, or be, the eventual winner?  Even the visage of Tom Horner (Independent) on the state capital’s balcony seems annexed from the rest of the competitors. 

1. The article found by this link about Tom Horner’s candidacy http://www.mercurynews.com/business-special-reports/ci_15018047, includes criticisms of him by leading republicans and democrats.  Until the media pursues, and the voters accept, criticisms of statements and maneuvers made by democrats and republicans by Independents, our state and nation won’t advance out of the foolishly consistent political mindset we’ve created.
    
    
   We change our clothes, our sleeping positions, spouses, our mailing address, jobs, change traffic lanes on 494, hunting for the right one that will get us home sooner, change our mind about what dish we order at the restaurant after the waiter has mentioned the specials, but change our voting practice and seek an alternative to the hobgoblins represented by the status quo- why not?