When
most Americans stay home on Election Day, Republicans win and that they did
this past Tuesday. Apparently the
Republican Party now controls more legislative seats in state capitals and DC
and more Governorships than at any time since the 1920's. But the good news for liberals and
progressives is that after the 1920's came the 30's and a liberal Democratic
dominance of states and the national government that lasted essentially for
almost 40 years.
There
have been times in our nation’s history when the country was deeply divided
ideologically and party wise: the 1790's with the Federalists and
Democratic-Republicans; the 1840's with the Democrats and the Whigs. In recent
decades with the party ideological realignment of the 1970's we have seen a
fiercely partisan battle between radical conservative Republicans and liberal progressive
Democrats.
I do
not believe these cycles are absolutely predictable nor automatically
recurring. As the nation has matured, and the electorate expanded, and the
media and educational system have dumbed down the populace, electors' reasons
for voting and resultant partisan divisions have changed. There are three things that people today base
their vote on: personality, party affiliation, and positions on issues (each of
these being applicable to both the candidate and voter).
I
would argue that when voting for a high visibility office, e.g. President or
Governor or US Senator, electors vote primarily based on the personality of the
candidate or what they perceive as that personality. It is a gut reaction of
the voter based on what they have read or seen or heard about the candidates,
filtered through the vagaries of the voters own personality, and is not always
either quantifiable nor predictable.
As for
positions on issues, I find that voters gravitate towards candidates that they
assume agree with their positions -- but if confronted with a difference they
will often either excuse the candidate or downplay the salience of the
particular issue to them. When voting on
a ballot question the voter will answer Yes or No based on the voters opinion. So we have the strange results last Tuesday
of voters in some states voting Yes to increase the minimum wage and at the
same time electing to office some opponent of any minimum wage. Position on the
issue determined one lever pulled down and personality of the candidate the
other. When faced with barely considered
nor media covered row offices or down ballot spots the voters will still to
some extent vote party. By voting party
I mean voting ones party identification (and more and more Americans are
identifying as independent -- in fact we’re almost 1/3 D, 1/3 R and 1/3 I by
self -identification).
While
I believe that some of President Obama’s actions and some of his inactions may
have cost some Democrats votes or discouraged some from voting I also still
believe that history shows that all politics is local. The Colorado and Virginia Senate races were
close because both Democratic candidates were dull on the stump - one lost and
one won. President Wilson lost his last
mid-term elections as he was winning WWI and Winston Churchill lost his right
after he won WWII. Post election
analysis in the immediate days after the election is about as accurate as most
of the pre-election predictions -- just consult Presidents Dewey and Gore.
The
Republican party is where it’s dominant Tea Party faction wants it to be back
in the 1920's in terms of governmental power.
And in two years we liberal progressives will be back where we want to
be completing the Great Society. As the
Republicans run against terrorists and diseases we Democrats should run in the tradition
of Franklin Roosevelt - Against Fear Itself.
7
November 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment