To Vote Or Not To Vote; That Is The Question
by Phillip Ellis Jackson | View comments |
Print This Post
Only those who play the game get to reap the rewards.
In 1982, I was chairman of the Issues Committee and a speechwriter to a successful Congressional candidate. Several years later I went to work for the largest political lobbying firm in Washington, DC. In between I organized the Dallas Round of NAFTA negotiations, which involved a close working relationship with White House staff and other elected officials.
This hands-on experience with national politics taught me a few things I didn’t learn in school. I’m reminded of this experience today as the Republican Party agonizes over whom to support, and whom to withhold support from, in the upcoming presidential election. The rhetoric about walking out on the party if McCain wins, Paul loses, Romney is nominated, or Huckabee is ignored, is silly and ultimately self-defeating.
It doesn’t matter whether your intentions are noble or corrupt. The American political system operates in a certain way, and has certain consequences attached to that operation. Ignoring this reality will serve only one purpose. It will not advance your cause, promote your political philosophy, or teach corrupt politicians a lesson. Instead, it will reduce you to an irrelevant afterthought and do far more to damage the beliefs and ideas you hold dear, than advance them.
Why is this true? Let’s begin with a review of the basics, focusing on two broad types of voters.
1. Who Votes, and Why?
The ideologically pure voter naturally wants an ideologically pure candidate to support. This is quite understandable, since ideology, not pragmatic politics, drives their decisions. If no such “pure” candidate exists, then these voters want the person they support to at least share a preponderance of the same goals and values they hold. Exactly what constitutes a “preponderance” is, at the end of the day, a purely personal decision; but the concept is an understandable one, so there’s no need to belabor this point. Unless a candidate shares a minimum number of common, important goals and values, the ideologically-driven voter will not give that individual their support at the ballot box.
The purely pragmatic voter sees the world in a different way. It isn’t that ideology is unimportant; it's just that, to their way of thinking, politics involves a lot more than ideology. It also involves winning elections, since winning determines who exercises power and who doesn’t. The specific, real-world goals they want to advance stand a much better chance of actually being implemented if their guy (or gal) is in office, than if their candidate loses the election. It’s a straightforward issue of power — or the lack of it. You can’t accomplish anything unless you have the power to implement your ideas, and in the U.S. system of government, winning elections bestows that power.
The vast majority of voters occupy the middle ground between these two positions. They hold some strong beliefs that put them in the “ideological” camp. Abortion advocates and abortion opponents fall into this category, as do those who hold views about the inherent constitutionality or unconstitutionality of an action; the desire for centralized vs. decentralized government, and so forth. On other matters they simply have a series of personal, even venal wants or desires that aren’t ideologically-based. They want a subsidy for college education because their kid just turned 17; they want a tax refund even though they didn’t pay any taxes; they want an increase in their home mortgage deduction, or a decrease in their property taxes, etc.
It’s the tension, and subsequence balance, between the ideological and pragmatic that ultimately defines an individual voter. The purest of the ideologically pure will foreswear any personal wants or desires that conflict with their ideological template. The most pragmatic of the pragmatic could care less if their wants and needs conflict with a reasoned principle they otherwise hold near and dear.
It’s been my experience that most people tend to congregate toward the middle of this spectrum rather than at either extreme. They are willing to “draw the line” firmly on some issues (say, not having an abortion even though the baby is ill-timed and unwanted). But on other matters pragmatism will do fine. If the government is stupid enough to give every family a $1,500 pre-election stimulus check, they’ll still cash and spend the money — even though they are otherwise opposed to politically-motivated big government waste.
2. Non-Voting Strategies
Everything I’ve said above is common sense, and it doesn’t take a fancy education or practical political experience to figure it out. So, then, one might logically ask, why take the time and trouble to lay it all out?
The answer is simple. While we all “know” this intuitively, we really don’t “know” it at all. If this understanding of American voting behavior was really clear-cut, then the answer to a related question would be equally clear. Namely, is it better to vote for your party’s flawed candidate (that is, one who doesn’t meet your minimum standards of ideological purity), or sit out the election as a sign of protest? This is the Lenin vs. Trotsky dilemma. Both guys are commies, but only one is perceived to be a “real commie.” The other guy (i.e. the one you don’t support) is a heretic, and not deserving of your vote.
Phrased a bit differently, we can ask the same question this way. Is it better to help elect a guy who will give you only some of the things you want, or let the other party win and hope that the country will get so screwed up that four years from now your guy will be swept into power? This is the Ford vs. Reagan dilemma. While Reagan stayed and fought within the Republican Party, a number of his supporters opted out of the 1976 electoral process. Having lost their party’s primary battle, they were willing to sit back and see Jimmy Carter elected president than validate a flawed ideology by voting for Ford.
Unfortunately, as rhetorically attractive as both of these strategies are, at the end of the day each is fundamentally, and fatally flawed.
In the first case, Lenin vs. Trotsky, all that results is a spitting match between proponents of the same philosophy who each claim to be the only “True” representative of that ideology. A lot of wasted energy is expended arguing among would-be allies about who is the purest of the pure, rather than focusing their combined energy on defeating the opposing party’s candidate — who is completely off the reservation! When the proper philosophical position becomes so important that someone who shares only 40% of your beliefs is viewed indistinguishably from someone who shares 0% of your beliefs, it’s time to bring that philosophy back down to earth. Either that, or just announce once and for all that reality is only a secondary consideration to a properly-articulated political belief, and retire to Ted Kaczynski-land to finish work on that manifesto.
In the second case, Ford vs. Reagan, this strategy works great if the intervening president is as incompetent as Jimmy Carter. But it doesn’t work so great if the person is a devious and unethical shrew who will use the next four years to consolidate her power with her Party cohorts, and strip away any advantages you might have through targeted legislation (reintroduction of the “Fairness Doctrine,” confiscatory tax policy, massive entitlement increases, and certain Federal Court appointments, to name a few.). Instead of the country getting screwed and turning to your candidate, you’re the one who’s bending over and grabbing the proverbial ankles. You just allowed a reprehensible political philosophy to take power because the guy championing your side wasn’t politically-correct enough. Yeah, sure, you did all this with the best of intentions to advance the cause of your ideology. But as someone far wiser than I once said, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
3. How Candidates View Voters
To appreciate the wisdom of these admonitions, let me back you up for a moment and look at this calculation again. This time, though, we’ll examine it not from the viewpoint of the voter, but from the viewpoint of the other significant player in this calculation. The candidate running for office.
First, it does no good to rant and rave against the present system, or wish/lament that it operated differently than it does. It is what it is in 2008, and that’s our starting point. To change it one must first acquire the power to initiate those changes. While some stimulus for change comes through public pressure and the press, the actual power to do things differently lies with the elected officials themselves. Unless and until they change the law, the law stays as it is.
Second, we need to keep in mind that regardless of what the Founders may have intended for members of government, holding public office has become their “job.” And like any good employee, their first thought in the morning isn’t how to change the world. It’s how to keep their job so that one day they can change the world — particularly when the job they’re protecting pays fairly well, comes with a lot of perks, and gives them elevated social status. This is why Lloyd Bentsen was perfectly willing to run as Michael Dukakis’ running mate in 1988, since Texas law allowed him to run for re-election to the Senate at the same time. And it’s why Dennis Kucinich just dropped out of the Democrat primaries. Channeling UFOs through the Democrat primary process is fun and inconsequential until such time as a serious primary challenge to your own Congressional seat arises. Then, it’s time to put the tin foil away and return home to protect your income stream, since running for president again in 2012 as a defeated Congressman doesn’t get you much traction. Not to mention, the absence of a high profile job may not sit well with the present Mrs. K.
Elected officials keep their jobs by winning elections. And they do this by courting actual voters. The key word here is “actual.” It’s no coincidence that pollsters speak about “active voters” instead of “voters” when trying to predict the results of an election. “Voters” are surveyed when the purpose is to add a bunch of opinions to the poll so as to deflate the Conservative/Republican candidate’s alleged support, and build up the Liberal/Democrat’s presumed support. But as election day nears, “active voters” are exclusively surveyed. Why? Because people who voted in the past are likely to vote again. They did it at least once, so it’s reasonable to expect that they’ll suffer through the process and do it another time. Pollsters understand this, and the offices holders and office seekers understand this. People who actually vote shape the outcome of an election. People who sit on the sidelines and proclaim their moral superiority don’t get you elected.
4. The Ideological Non-Voter
The big question, therefore, in every election is who are these active voters, and how does a candidate reach them?
We normally think of the inactive voting population as young, poor, uneducated, unsophisticated, lazy, and so forth; that is, those without a stake in the system, the maturity to exercise their right to vote, or the presence of mind to see any need to vote at all.
This is a correct assumption, as far as it goes. But the non-voting population also includes the ideologically pure who may be none of these. They purposefully withheld their vote as a thoughtful sign of protest, not because of any presumed immaturity or character flaws.
All this is well and good, and it distinguishes (at least rhetorically) otherwise thoughtful and engaged individuals from the dregs of non-voting society. It means a lot to the ideological non-voter to appreciate the fact that his is a protest action, and not a reflection of sloth, stupidity, or poor socio-economic status. But at the end of the day, as far as the candidate is concerned, the ideological non-voter still didn’t vote. Whether his motives were high-minded or self-centered, the non-voter did absolutely nothing to contribute to the candidate’s election. And this now presents a dilemma — not to the candidate, but to the ideological non-voter.
Since an individual’s reason for not voting is not immediately clear to anyone but the individual himself (that is, you may know why you acted the way you did, but unless the candidate is your next door neighbor or visits the same chat room you do, all he sees on the voting roster is an empty space next to your name), the candidate has two options in evaluating what to do with those who deliberately absent themselves from the electoral process.
On one hand, he can try and survey all the non-voters to discern who would actually vote for him if given a strong reason. However, this is time-consuming, expensive, and ultimately a highly ineffective use of resources that could be better spent on campaign advertisements to the actual voting public. All of which leads to the second option, which involves a more effective use of the candidate’s time and resources. It can be summarized in a simple phrase. Forget about the people who don’t vote, and focus instead on those who actually do vote.
A simple understanding of human nature is all that’s needed to see the logic of this choice. If your focus is on winning an election, not just articulating an ideological point of view, it makes more sense to appeal to actual voters than try to change an individual’s non-voting behavior. This is why churches pass out the collection box during services, and not randomly to people on the street. There’s a higher chance of success in securing donations from people who attend church than people who don’t. The same basic principle applies to electoral politics.
But, you might say, by not going after the non-voter, the candidate is leaving a lot of potential votes on the table. Let’s ignore for the moment that a lazy person cannot be made un-lazy, an ignorant person cannot be turned into an informed and civic minded person overnight, etc. Sure, anything is possible with time. But elections are held on a fixed cycle, and unless the candidate starts well in advance (which takes extra time and money), bad voting behaviors are not going to be changed quickly enough.
Moreover, even if each ideological non-voter could somehow be pulled out of the mass of regular non-voters so we know exactly who they are, a second problem will present itself. The ideological non-voter has a list of demands, so to speak, that must be met by the candidate to secure their vote. In the real world, a candidate isn’t going to spend countless hours negotiating with individual voters to meet their demands. Rather, it’s the candidate who presents a package of ideas to the voters, and the voters who react to that package.
To gain more potential voters this package may be modified or adjusted based on polling and focus group input. At times blocks of voters (also called “special interest groups”) will present ideas (aka “demands”) to a candidate, who can then choose to incorporate those ideas into his/her platform if he thinks it will benefit him electorally. The only real opportunity for individual input into a candidate’s position comes when it is associated with large sums of money from political donors who have personal, rather than ideological issues they want to vet. Otherwise, the individual ideologically-driven non-voter is SOL. He made his protest by not voting, but it’s received by the candidate with the same batch of muddled messages that come from every non-voter.
5. Size Matters, If It Can Be Measured
So it all comes down to this. Unless all the ideologically-driven non-voters can unite in sufficiently large numbers, these non-voters are relegated to obscurity. Their “protest non-vote” has not succeeded in shaping the candidate’s positions. Rather, they are dismissed as irrelevant to the electoral process because, at the end of the day, they are. They didn’t vote.
Polls, letter-writing campaigns, focus groups and other similar vehicles can suggest a general reason why groups of voters stayed home on election day. If a candidate pays for a study, he/she can be reasonably certain of its accuracy. However, few candidates have the resources to devote to such an effort. If the message comes from the media or “general intuition,” it’s much less reliable. Not to mention, there may be a variety of different ideological reasons in play. Not every disaffected voter is a Ron Paul acolyte, for example. And even among the Paulistinians, different voters have different areas of emphasis and different trigger points. So what exactly is the message a non-voter conveys? Exit polls of actual voters can help identify the reasons why they cast their votes the way they did. For non-voters, their specific reasons for not voting is just a guess.
Putting the above aside, and assuming for the moment that a sufficient number of non-voters have a unified ideology, there’s another problem that needs to be addressed. This ideology needs to be effectively communicated to the candidate. The question is, how to do this? Does everyone sign a petition? Do all these ideological non-voters join a political club and elect spokesmen? There has to be some credibility attached to the words of any so-called representative of this group who pays the candidate a visit, promising that the non-voters will actually vote this time if certain demands are met.
This is all terribly awkward and quite unrealistic, except for the most extreme cases where the non-voting block is very homogenous and well organized. Some faith-based groups may pull it off when a church membership is involved, since that’s a tangible existing block of people. And a few highly organized special interest groups may hold enough credibility to make good on their promises or threats. But a bunch of disaffected people who share a common ideology — but live in different states and localities, and interact by trading blogs — aren’t likely to meet the standard of political credibility. Sure they’re pissed off, but they’re no real threat to the candidate. Not voting means neither the Republican nor Democrat gets their vote, so it’s a wash.
6. Third Parties
This is why ideological non-voters usually threaten to support a third party candidate instead of simply staying home on election day. They reason that they will be seen as active voters, and thus their impact can be measured. The candidate knows where they are, what they believe and what they want, and can bring them into the fold if they adopt their platform.
Unfortunately, as a political strategy, this one stinks too. Where they are and what they want may be clear, but a larger question still remains. How far outside the scope of the active voting population are their demands? If most active voters want smaller government, and this voting block wants smaller government too, then meshing the two interests is just a detail. But if most active voters want more government handouts, a problem exists. Unless the ideological voters are willing to settle for a few small steps, their support is not beneficial to the candidate. Unfortunately, ideological voters — being ideological — view small steps and other such compromises as “selling out,” and refuse to modify their demands. We know this is true because if they were really willing to take smaller steps and accept certain ideological compromises, they wouldn’t have left the Republican or Democrat parties in the first place.
Moreover, by identifying themselves with a third party, these actual voters have now done two additional things to diminish their influence.
First, they’ve precisely identified their numbers. This is a good thing if you happen to be the Liberal Party in New York State, which has a large constituency. It’s not a good thing if you are the “Small Government Party” in New York State, which would presumably have a much smaller base. Though appealing philosophically to a Republican candidate, adopting that platform isn’t going to win any elections. I’d love to tell you about a mayor of New York City who was a small government, fiscally-responsible, pro-life, strict constitutionalist, but there’s never been one elected. Sure some candidates have run on such a platform, but all of them lost. Their ideas may be great, but their actual impact on government is zero. All of which goes to reinforce the fact that the greatest ideas in the world are useless unless they are accompanied by an ability to implement them.
This is why Rudy, a Republican, holds many policies that are polar opposite to Ron Paul. Rudy can get elected mayor of New York City with the positions he held, but wouldn’t stand a chance running against Ron Paul for his congressional seat. And just to round things out, Paul would have no chance at all gaining office in Manhattan, regardless of how much proselytizing he did. In the world of politics, this doesn’t make either Rudy or Ron Paul “right” to hold the positions they do. It’s a simple reflection of the political reality each of them faces. To change that reality they have to first recognize it, and then work within it. Nothing in politics comes all at once.
Second, by linking themselves to a separate political party, these individuals have placed a barrier between themselves and a mainstream candidate. Only in rare cases will two parties collaborate on a single candidate, as in the case of the Liberal and Democrat parties in New York State. This is because while ideology is important to them, winning is equally important. Republicans tend to take their ideology more seriously, which is an admirable trait. But instead of co-nominating a Republican candidate, Libertarians, as one example, will nominate their own candidate. Once this happens, Libertarian party voters have taken themselves out of the equation. They are no longer seen as trying to change the Republican Party, but instead are competing with it.
Since the Libertarians have absolutely no chance of winning a presidential election, neither the Republican nor Democrat candidate gains or loses anything by those votes. The exercise is a wash, and is thus ignored in the competition for votes during that election cycle. The only exception where third party votes matter is in a tight race in a given Congressional District or State. But for every Ralph Nader tipping the election to Bush in 2000, there are countless examples of electoral irrelevancy.
So, at the end of the day, while a third party can certainly influence an election, it does so not by propelling its candidate or philosophy, but rather by doing the exact opposite. Nader, as a fringe candidate, was too radical to find a home in the party of Al Gore. Instead of settling for some of his views being represented by a Gore presidency, he opted for helping to elect a man who represented none of his views. Four years later, instead of using a “failed” Bush presidency to propel his ideology to new heights, Nader received even fewer votes than 2000 as Bush solidified his hold on the presidency. Perot’s vendetta against Bush 41 had similar results. He campaigned on a platform of smaller, more fiscally responsible government, and succeeded in electing Bill Clinton.
7. The Law of Unintended Consequences
Non-voters and third party voters have made themselves irrelevant to the electoral process. There is no reason to pursue either of these groups when an active, mainstream voting population already exists. These active voters have needs, wishes and desires — most pragmatic, some ideological. These voters are a candidate’s target, the people who are willing to participate in the system as it currently is, not only when the system is changed to suit their needs.
Candidates don’t waste their time trying to persuade the disaffected to change their ways. If they seek out new voters at all, it’s blocks of people who wish to enter the existing system as it currently operates. This is why the Democrats want to enfranchise illegal alien voters. These potential new voters aren’t withholding their votes until their demands are met; they’re dying to insert themselves into the system as a significant voting block so their demands will be met! They’ll change the system by co-opting it. They won’t insist on change first before they participate.
It’s also why the Republicans learned a different “lesson” from the 2006 mid-term election than the one non-voters intended to convey. When the base stayed home in protest, they took themselves out of the political equation. Republican Party candidates in 2008 could try to persuade the disaffected to return, hoping that they’d meet their demands sufficiently to regain their active votes. Or, as they seem to be doing, they could look around at the people who did vote in 2006, and most likely will vote again 2008, and appeal to them.
The calculation is simple. Take a chance getting pissed off people to return to the fold, or find out what active voters want and give it to them. Remember, it isn’t just an election that’s at stake — it’s a job with real money, perks and prestige for the winner. Only those candidates who are independently wealthy enough can afford to be ideologically-pure, and thus will seek out ideological voters. That is, unless doing so might also cost them the perks and prestige that comes with the job. In this case, it’s better to pander to the wants and needs of active voters than try to re-affect the disaffected, and risk losing your core constituency.
Thus, at the end of the day, regardless of the candidate’s ideological grounding, the overwhelming majority of these office seekers will court only active voters who see the choice as between the Democrat or Republican candidates. And if the ideologically pure aren’t among this group, then their voice will not be added to this mix, which means pragmatism not ideology will drive the election. Or if ideology is a factor, it will be the ideology of the active-voting Left, not the non-voting Right that counts, since the ideological Right took itself out of the game.
8. Ideas and Power
I’ve said before that elections are about ideas, but they are also about power. On the presidential level, primaries are where the voters attempt to steer the party ideologically. This is the arena where ideology matters most. It’s here that candidates and voters banter back and forth about what “true ideology” guides their actions, and what real-world perks the candidate needs to give a particular State whose delegates he needs.
A candidate who focuses only on the ideological and won’t address the pragmatic normally finds himself on the fringe of each State primary, just as a candidate who wanders ideologically while pandering to the electorate finds himself slipping in the polls. The American voter wants a candidate to have principles, but like the stimulus package currently being proposed, they also want their candidates to give them things too. Changing this dynamic involves a lot of voter education, and the lessons are best learned from a flawed leader holding office than an ideologically pure outsider shouting into the wind.
All of which leads to the real world consequences of non-voting. If your candidate loses the primary, and a less than ideal competitor gains the party’s nomination, you have a choice. And this choice is built around the exercise of power.
What a candidate will do in office with the power they’ve gained electorally may be only a fraction of what you desire. But, as one example, if that fraction nominates a Supreme Court justice who respects life, then there is a real difference. That is, unless your personal distaste for abortion is simply rhetorical. I’ve never understood why it’s better to allow a committed Leftist to win election, who is 100% certain to nominate a pro-choice justice, because the Republican candidate may not be as conservative as I desire. Even if it’s only a “roll of the dice” that he’ll actually nominate a strict constructionist, it is still not a 100% certainty that he won’t. Elections are about real things, and this is one of them.
To those who argue that it’s all or nothing before they’ll give a candidate their support, I guarantee that you’ll get nothing. To those who say it’s better to lose on principle than win with a flawed candidate, I remind you that losers have no power; and winners have power over you. To those who think that non-voting or voting for a third party will “send a message,” I ask you to consider again what I’ve said above. Your message will not be received. And if it is received, it will not be understood. And if it is understood, the payoff to a candidate is higher if he solicits active voters who participate in the current system than it is to try and bring in disaffected voters who dislike the system or its ideology.
If you want change, and your candidate didn’t win the party primary, you have four years to do what Reagan did after losing to Ford in 1976: make your case more effectively, and in doing so broaden the appeal of your candidate and his ideas so you will became victorious. Picking up your marbles and leaving, or playing in a different game, gets you nothing electorally.
The world isn’t going to stand still and wait because your ideology didn’t prevail.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Wise and thought provoking as usual Phil. But, I think you need another category to complement the “ideological” voter – perhaps the “disillusioned” voter. The disillusioned voter is the same genus but a separate species from the ideological voter or the lazy non-voter. If the past is the key to the future, the disillusioned voter is the consummate pessimist – burned too many times to come quietly back to the fold, but at the same time holding no illusions about what will happen if the “other” party gets in.
For example, it was unintended on your part I’m sure, but a current list of Supreme Court Justices indicates a preponderance of candidates nominated by Republicans – Ginsburg is the only sitting justice nominated by a Democrat and recently retired Justice O’Connor was nominated by Reagan. So, if a Republican gets in, a Supreme Court Justice, or maybe three, will be nominated by a supposedly sympathetic president – but what does that guarantee – in your world of unashamed political pragmatism it guarantees precisely “nada” as we say in California (nada = bupkas for those unfortunates who live on the East Coast).
In fact, the disillusioned voter takes your political pragmatism to the extreme. Nothing is guaranteed about the future (and anyone who believes they’re certain about what will happen under a future president, please give me the winning numbers for the California lottery – I’ll happily split with you). You are almost too right about what motivates politicians – and that’s what ails the disillusioned voter.
But, at this stage of the game, it’s all about political theatre – our interminable presidential campaigns and the entertainment value they always bring. People are merely posturing as this stage; posturing to themselves and to their friends. Happily arguing about the “right” candidate, dramatically declaring a “pox” on both parties, bemoaning the lack of suitable candidates, which really means those who sound exactly like themselves. And, who can predict what candidate has the right stuff and what that right stuff is – for example, although she won’t admit it, I know my wife voted twice for Bill Clinton because he supported “women’s issues” and being tall and good looking didn’t hurt either.
In California, we know politics is entertainment – look who we elect as governor, former actors, one of which turned out very well and one who is currently undecided over which political party he represents. But, along about this August, things will change. Once the parties nominate their respective candidate, it will be time to hear what goodies they’re offering – how do we know who to vote for until we hear what deal is on the table? And ideological purity will take a back seat to pragmatic realities – will universal health care be a big hit, should immigration reform be a front and center issue or something neither candidate wants to discuss? This is the important stuff in a society of 300 million “diverse” citizens – it’s all about the deal and what’s in it for me.
That may be overly cynical, but I’d be very interested (and I’m sure others as well) to hear your expert opinion on whether ideology and its related issues ever makes a personal difference to a politician. In other words, what are these pols really like under the hood – is their sincerity regarding ideology genuine or is it always Broadway theatre – beautiful songs and stories that only the politically naïve take seriously?
As a businessman, I have a built in resistance to vendors or employees who tell me they only want to serve my interests, who claim my welfare and that of my business takes first place within their hearts. Is it like that with politicians, do they only sing beautiful arias exactly as my vendors do – does anything other than their own welfare count?
Comment by Pat Skurka | February 1, 2008
Part of the reason for disillusionment and nonparticipation is that the two parties tend to push hard toward the center, no matter what their opponents say. When the ideological activists win the primary, they seldom win the general election — unless both parties show up with an ideologue, a very rare event. More commonly, we see two candidates that don't have, as George Wallace once said, "a dime's worth of difference". Sure, there is a modest difference between Sens. Clinton or Obama and Sen. McCain, but Reps. Kucinich and Tancredo did represent groups that wanted to be heard — and were lost in the battle. A three-party or, better yet, multi-party system tends to encourage participation because everyone can find a place, even if their party doesn't eventually get a seat in the coalition. Politics isn't limited to moderate, moderate-left and moderate-right.
Comment by freelunch | February 1, 2008
Pat:
Disillusionment springs from not understanding the present political system. The U.S. system of government is not designed to easily accommodate change, or to place major emphasis on ideology. Rather, it’s a cumbersome, pragmatically-oriented system that is biased towards politicians who give people “things”, rather than represent abstract ideals. This isn’t to say that it can’t reflect ideology, only that ideology needs to be taught to the people through concerted political leadership. Left to its own devices, elections are about competing interests vying for an opportunity to feed at the public trough. Those who don’t recognize this tendency become “disillusioned” because the illusion they operate under is not real.
The historical problem with Republican Supreme Court nominees is also a case of this. Republicans are not as willing to play heavy-handed politics in SCOTUS nominations as Democrats are. Democrats have litmus tests — most notably, on abortion. Republicans try to discern where their nominees stand without being so heavy handed. The result is that few Liberal Democrat nominees stray from a solid liberal stand, while a number of Republican nominees don’t turn out to be as ideologically driven as the Republican president had hoped.
The Dems know that to get a specific ideology into the Court they have to play pragmatic politics. The Reps hope that by respecting the office and institutions of government (which is a mythologized form of ideology) they’ll get the same results. They don’t, of course, because those unwilling to play pragmatic politics in a pragmatic political system lose more often than they win. Bush is a great example of this. He respects the office of the presidency, and tries to act as a leader of the entire nation. Thus, he rarely uses the office to launch destructive personal attacks against his opponents. In doing so he’s idolized American government. Clinton, by contrast, had no such qualms about using FBI files against his opponents and getting down and dirty to get his programs through. His ideology was very pragmatic in its understanding of the true nature of American politics.
It’s a rare politician who can rise above base politics to see the true national interest. But even those who do still need to separate the myth of government from the reality of government. Trying to honor the office of the presidency and represent the nation is an admiral, ideologically-based goal. But in pursuing this goal, unless the politician is prepared to get down in the pragmatic trenches, he’s going to get kneecapped by those who understand the system as it actually is.
Freelunch:
Your analysis of a multi-party system is on target, in principle. But in really it only works in a parliamentary form of government. It’s not a real option for the present U.S. system of government with fixed election dates, Senate and Congressional seniority rules which appoint committee chairmen who wield enormous power, and two established parties that completely control the election mechanism. This is why the ideological fight needs to take place in the primary system, not the general election.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 1, 2008
Phil,
In your last column The Empty Suit, you ranted and railed against those who thought abstract only. Physician, heal thyself. Why didn’t you mention McCain in this column?
A few other questions for you.
How about energizing the base? If McCain continues to take positions that aren’t energizing the conservative base, is it the fault of these conservative non-voters for not voting, or is it McCain’s fault for not energizing them?
You said: Rather, it’s a cumbersome, pragmatically-oriented system that is biased towards politicians who give people “things”, rather than represent abstract ideals.
Yes, the Newt/Delay/Armey Axis of Good was but a moment in time, but we conservatives want a gov’t to not give us things. Are we irrelevant?
I take solace in the fact that the 3 previous liberal regimes in post-WWII history were soon replaced by their opposite: LBJ in 1968 by Nixon (although Nixon governed as a liberal, he was pretty much perceived as the anti-LBJ), Carter in 1980 by Reagan, and the Democratic Congress in 1994 by Newt et al. Since the fundamental underpinnings of the US economy are perhaps in worse shape since Stagflation I in the 70s — Dare I say that the “solutions” the Fed, Bush, & Congress are implementing almost guarantee Stagflation II? — a tax-and-spend Hillary Presidency will be lucky not to repeat the Great Depression (Please parse my hyperbole appropriately).
Coulter and I via convergent evolution arrived at the same conclusion together: I’m voting for Hillary and may even campaign for her. A vengeful President McCain who wreaks payback on the only group who’s criticized him, the conservative base, will probably damage the country and the Presidency far more than a triangulating Hillary. I want Hillary to take the inevitable fall.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 2, 2008
“In your last column The Empty Suit, you ranted and railed against those who thought abstract only. Physician, heal thyself. Why didn’t you mention McCain in this column?”
*** Life Free — I’m confused by your statement. “The Empty Suit” was about people who endlessly mouth slogans as a substitute for discussing how things actually work in the real world. This essay was about how politicians and voters operate within the current political system: what voting strategies work, don’t work, and why. It’s a straightforward political analysis. It’s not “abstract” (i.e. devoid of substance). I related the general principles I discussed to concrete examples of ideologically-based and pragmatic voting strategies.
As for McCain, I’ve offered no specific comments here or before about any candidates other than a constant disapproval of Hillary Clinton, occasionally references to some of Ron Paul’s rather unique policy views, and one article that spoke about whether we should consider nominating a pro-choice candidate (or whether that stand in and of itself should disqualify any candidate from consideration). I mentioned McCain and others in the opening paragraphs of this current essay to ground the reason for the essay in the first place, to wit: “I’m reminded of this experience today as the Republican Party agonizes over whom to support, and whom to withhold support from, in the upcoming presidential election. The rhetoric about walking out on the party if McCain wins, Paul loses, Romney is nominated, or Huckabee is ignored, is silly and ultimately self-defeating.”
Again, this essay wasn’t an attempt to support or oppose a particular candidate. I’ve maintained from the start that primaries are where ideology should matter (that is, you should try to nominate someone who represents your political views best). I’ve said that if Ron Paul is your guy, you should actively support him. The same with Huckabee, Rudy, Romney, Thompson, McCain and any others. But when the primary is over and we have a nominee, it’s time to shift to a more practical approach. Elections (in this case, presidential elections) are about power, and the choice of who will hold that power rests exclusively between the Republican and Democrat nominees.
As for your comments about McCain not energizing the base, and whose “fault” this is, again all good questions. But this wasn’t the focus of my present essay. I’ll offer a few thoughts on the subject if you want, though. I agree that McCain is having a real problem with the base because of his presumed core beliefs (or lack thereof). On the other hand, if he wins enough delegates, he’ll be the Republican Party nominee regardless of this fact. That tells us one of 3 things: (a) the base is shifting, or (b) he ran a great campaign to isolate the base, or (c) the base-oriented candidates screwed up by splitting the votes among themselves to allow the nomination of an unsympathetic point of view. I haven’t assigned any value to each of these three possibilities yet, but I think (b) and (c) are the most likely reasons — assuming McCain wins. I’m not prepared to comment any more directly on this at this time because I’m still sorting through what’s actually going on. But as a general analysis, this is how I’d begin my evaluation.
What I will say is that words like “fault” are very value-laden, and may not adequately reflect the dynamics of what’s going on. There’s “blame” if you look at option (c) above and say that the more conservative candidates should have recognized the political implications of dividing the vote. But, if the purpose of a primary is to vet these kinds of ideas, who am I to “blame” Ron Paul, Huckabee, Thompson, etc. from offering their ideas to the voters. Hindsight doesn’t count in assigning “blame” if everyone was operating within the system as the system was designed to operate. Rather, one guy (McCain) was smart enough to appreciate the implications here and use it to his advantage. It helped that Rudy didn’t contest the earlier primaries, giving him a clear lock on that “wing” of the party while the others were dividing up the same pie.
“You said: ‘Rather, it’s a cumbersome, pragmatically-oriented system that is biased towards politicians who give people “things”, rather than represent abstract ideals.’ Yes, the Newt/Delay/Armey Axis of Good was but a moment in time, but we conservatives want a gov’t to not give us things. Are we irrelevant?”
*** No, we’re not irrelevant. We’re just not monolithic (i.e. there are different kinds of conservatives, not just “one True Conservative” and everyone else a non-conservative as some have suggested.) And more to the point, even conservatives want things. Some things are ideological (protect traditional marriages, build a stronger national defense, etc.). But conservatives also elect their representatives to build bridges in their congressional district, and bring home other pork through earmarks or regular legislation.
One might argue that conservatives tend to want less pork that Democrats, though I’m not sure this is true. It may just be a difference in kind. I think the real difference is that conservatives still want their district pork, but conservatives also look ideologically at ALL pork, and reach a point where they get disgusted and turn on their Party. (Dem’s, by contrast, never reach this threshold). So having gorged ourselves locally, we vomit nationally, and then allow the Dems back in power — who say the right words to get elected, but then push pork to even greater heights!
If Republican voters kept their ideology, but understood better how things actually work in government, they could pursue a more pragmatic course that achieves some of what they want each year. Instead, we wallow in self-righteous self-loathing about government waste and corruption, which the Dems and media use throw Republicans out of office to put even more wasteful and corrupt Democrat politicians into power.
“Coulter and I via convergent evolution arrived at the same conclusion together: I’m voting for Hillary and may even campaign for her. A vengeful President McCain who wreaks payback on the only group who’s criticized him, the conservative base, will probably damage the country and the Presidency far more than a triangulating Hillary. I want Hillary to take the inevitable fall.”
*** Then you’re willing to allow Hillary to nominate pro-abortion Supreme Court justices, correct? It’s 100% certain she will, vs a “roll of the dice” that McCain will not do so. This is the reality of the exercise of political power.
Whether I like McCain or not, I’ll support him. Even if he’s hypothetically only 10% of what I want, Hillary is 100% of what I oppose. If your scenario is correct and McCain tries to deliberately wreck the base, it will unify the disunified conservatives now who are arguing among themselves. And, as a 72 year old first termer, the political terrain will be very different in 2012.
This is just some of the real-world calculation that we need to consider before acting impetuously. Anger is not a good reason to support a candidate. At times we conservative voters can be our own worst enemies.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 2, 2008
Here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say Joe Lieberman - former Democrat, current "Independent", and rumored potential running mate for John McCain - let's say he decides to jump ship and run for the Republican nomination. Now let's say, against all reason and understanding, he wins the nomination. What do you do? Elect a former Democrat who you know is lying to you outrightly and will not do anything to further your ideological goals, or just suck it up and vote for him just to have somebody in office with an "R" next to their name? To what extent are you affiliated with a party, and to what extent an ideology? What if you end up being presented with the Trotsky/Lenin choice of "which is the better commie", but you're not a commie? We'll make believe that John McCain is the type of guy who will support strict constructionist, anti-abortion Supreme Court justices for argument's sake. But what if we end up with a situation where there really isn't any difference "our guy" and "their guy"? If you think a Joe Lieberman Republican run sounds completely outlandish, consider that you might be pragmatically electing him to be second in line for the job behind a 72 year old man this November just so you can buy yourself a Sandra Day O'Conner instead of a Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There has to be a breaking point where ideology trumps pragmatism. I'm not necessarily saying we're at that point (even though I do personally believe we're relatively close), but would you say, hypothetically, that such a point exists? If you are voting purely and simply to keep one particular party in power, but the party doesn't represent anything that you believe in, does it even really make a difference what party you give power to? Getting back to what I said before, WHY are you associated with a party? Simply for the sake of having a party, or because the party reflects your ideology?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 3, 2008
Pat: I think the better scenario (though still far-fetched) is that Lieberman become’s McCain’s VP, McCain gets elected president, McCain dies in office, and Joe becomes president.
Having said all that, though, here’s the problem with your analysis. For better or worse, the US system is not designed to work with more than 2 parties. [I’ve written about this at length before]. The choice in November is between the Dem and Rep candidates, and only them. Third party votes do nothing except help insure that an even more odious political philosophy gains power. Not voting makes you even more politically irrelevant.
If you focus only on the issue of who wins your party’s nomination, then you are pursuing a bad short term policy. A party cannot survive if every time a candidate’s ideology loses those people desert the party. A victory for your side would mean that those who are ideologically opposed to your candidate should leave the party too. The party will never win any elections this way. And even if the people who leave join or form a third party, there will be schisms and fractures in that too party. If the default action is to bolt, they’ll be relegated to electoral irrelevancy too.
[It doesn’t matter whether they leave because of a strong ideological disagreement, or a personality dispute with the nominee. The effect is the same. Ron Paul will not win the nomination, and I’m sure he is completely opposed to McCain, who might win the nomination. Paul said he will not go 3rd party. McCain will expect his vote the same way Paul would expect McCain’s vote if the circumstances were different. The same with Romney and McCain, who are less ideologically in conflict, but seem to hate each other’s guts.]
So what to do if your personal beliefs are in conflict with the party’s nominee? I see only two practical choices. (1) join the other major party, as many disenchanted Democrats have done over the last 30 years. Or (2) fight to change the type of candidate your party will nominate, as the Republicans did in the 1960s-1970s, leading to the election of Ronald Reagan.
Remember, while voters and candidates operate along an ideological-pragmatic spectrum, the SYSTEM ITSELF is 100% pragmatic. Only parliamentary systems and the like can afford to have multiple parties representing varied ideologies. In the US it’s winner take all, with the next election 2, 4 or 6 years away (not subject to the whim of the PM setting a new election date).
If your ideology didn’t prevail, then as I said above that tells us one of 3 things: (a) the base is shifting, or (b) the nominee ran a great campaign to isolate the base, or (c) the base-oriented candidates screwed up by splitting the votes among themselves to allow the nomination of an unsympathetic point of view.
If you think (a) is the explanation, join the other major party if their philosophy is more compatible. If not, like Ron Paul, stay and spread your message within your present party and fight to regain control. If you think it’s due to (b) and (c), which are tactical reasons, then those representing conservative philosophy got “out smarted”. Next time work to nominate more politically savvy candidates.
Picking up your marbles and leaving, or playing in a different game, gets you nothing electorally. The world isn’t going to stand still and wait because your ideology didn’t prevail.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008
Phil,
Thanks for the response.
I found your essay somewhat incongruous. You counseled pragmatism yet argued academically. Sure, PoliSci explanations of how politics works have value, but I couldn’t help thinking that your essay was also a plea to conservatives to vote for McCain. Even if it weren’t, I tried to ground and reference your arguments vis-à-vis the all-too-real-world case of McCain. Results follow.
You said: If Republican voters kept their ideology, but understood better how things actually work in government, they could pursue a more pragmatic course that achieves some of what they want each year. Instead, we wallow in self-righteous self-loathing about government waste and corruption, which the Dems and media use throw Republicans out of office to put even more wasteful and corrupt Democrat politicians into power.
Let’s be pragmatic. What victories have we small gov’t conservatives won during the Bush Presidency, and how will big gov’t fare under a McCain Presidency?
Based on OMB actuals, fed’l gov’t outlays increased at a 7.35% rate from 2002-2006. McCain has never had a private sector job. He supports CAFÉ, Sarbanes-Oxley, and Global Warming legislation, and, during a debate last week, railed against greedy capitalists and dissed profit.
What are we small gov’t conservatives supposed to do? Vote for McCain instead of Hillary since the US won’t become an EU-style Social Democratic-nee-socialist nation until 2023 under McCain instead of 2018 under Hillary? Is the choice between McCain and Hillary a choice between arthritic creeping socialism and non-arthritic creeping socialism?
Economic conservative politicians in Congress have already abandoned economic conservatism. Quick, Phil, name a prominent Congressional politician who has received media attention the past 6 months making the case for small gov’t.
McCain did not win the majority of the conservative vote in New Hampshire (Romney did), South Carolina (Huckabee), and Florida (Romney). In all 3 states, he won because he attracted independents, centrists, and Democratic crossovers. My God, we economic conservatives are in the wilderness, already. Now we’re not even allowed to have our own primaries?
Sorry, Phil, but staying in the game is not an option. The last 3 times we had a liberal Democratic President and a liberal Democratic Congress (1968, 1980, and 2002), the electorate spanked liberalism. With a Hillary Presidency, I’m counting on us spanking them again in 2010.
The question is when the Democrats will OD, not if. The current Democratic Congress has a 21% Job Approval rating. Our current economic problems, particularly the fundamentals, are caused by a too-large fed’l gov’t. And how will Bush and his economic clones Reid and Pelosi solve the current mess? By growing gov’t. Like I said, Phil, we’re facing Stagflation II. The parallels between now and the late 70s are eerie.
Either Hillary or McCain will inherit this economic mess. I’d much prefer it was Hillary who was blamed.
Sorry, Phil, but there is no way, no how Republicans will rediscover small gov’t if current trends continue. Republican Congressional leadership recently floated a trial balloon that they would foreswear pork if Democrats did. That trial balloon burst almost before it was inflated.
Since about 1983, we’ve had 2 recessions. 1991’s was minor, and 2001’s was less severe than the 3 recessions preceding 1983. Young voters have never faced the economic adversity that past generations faced. They have no visceral experience with the disastrous economic effects of large gov’t. They need to learn the lesson that past generations learned.
I can’t wait until Hillary gets situated in the Oval Office, and invites the Democratic leaders of a nearly-60-vote-proof Democratic Senate and a Democratically-dominated House. I’m going to do everything I can to assure that happenstance.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 4, 2008
Why does it seem that I disagree with this article? Maybe having gone through the political process and been successful at getting elected multiple times which colors my viewpoint.
The two party system is the one that is almost forced on us but it really needs to end when both sides offer candidates with no substantial difference in their views. I will vote in the election whether it be for one of the candidates or a write in candidate. The current crop of potential candidates almost guarantees that the vote cast for president will be a write in. Under Phil's premise this is a self defeating choice, however I differ and offer the alternative viewpoint that a small to medium volume of write in voters will begin a third party revolution with an actual chance of success in national policy making. Why could it be successful? Multiple state organizations actually placing local and state level candidates followed by federal candidates. The third parties that have failed have focused only on the federal level, yet real power is held when working from a base of local and state control. Does it take work? Yes, but maybe it is time. 2008 offers no choices and almost guarantees a substantial reduction in standard of living fueled by massive income redistribution as the elected federal officials pay off their grasping constituents.
Comment by Mickey G | February 4, 2008
Phil,
You didn't really answer my questions to my satisfaction. You said:
"For better or worse, the US system is not designed to work with more than 2 parties. [I’ve written about this at length before]. The choice in November is between the Dem and Rep candidates, and only them. Third party votes do nothing except help insure that an even more odious political philosophy gains power. Not voting makes you even more politically irrelevant."
I understand that very well. I'm not saying, "I'm going to vote libertarian party because the Republicans didn't elect my perfect image of a conservative". What I'm asking is: if the Republican party nominates a candidate like Lieberman, who represents exactly 0% of my ideological views, the same as the Democratic candidate, what do I do? Do I change parties and vote for a candidate that also represents 0% of my ideological views? Or do I vote for Lieberman simply to ensure that someone with an R by their name gets the office? Is my end goal purely and simply the election of a Republican? If so, why? Why do I vote for Republicans? The answer for me is, I vote for Republicans because they generally support more of my ideological views than Democrats do. At some point, I think ideology trumps pragmatism. I'm asking you if you believe that such a point exists (even if you don't believe it's right now, in this election), and what you think that point is. In such a case, I would not be able to cast a vote for a Republican that betrays ALL (not just some) of my ideology.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 4, 2008
Live Free, Mickey G, Patrick:
Good conversation all. Let me address the points you made, some of which are inter-related.
“You counseled pragmatism yet argued academically.”
*** I’m not anti-education! What I dislike are academic arguments that remain purely academic — that is, not taking the real world into account, and addressing how it operates when offering an analysis.
“I couldn’t help thinking that your essay was also a plea to conservatives to vote for McCain.”
*** I’m not entirely sure McCain will win. I think that party members have figured out that it’s a two man race now, and the choice will end up between Romney and McCain. It all depends on whether Huckabee supporters will continue to support Huck (who has no chance of winning), or go for the hypothetical “next best choice”. Ron Paul supporters will not budge, so that’s not part of my equation. Paul is running to promote a philosophy. Practically speaking, his focus is on the years ahead, where he hopes to change the direction of the party. The others were/are running for the 2008 nomination.
By the way, I strongly dislike both McCain and Romney, for different reasons. Neither of them is the candidate I would have preferred. But I dislike Obama and Hillary even more.
“Let’s be pragmatic. What victories have we small gov’t conservatives won during the Bush Presidency, and how will big gov’t fare under a McCain Presidency?”
*** You can’t formulate this calculation based on one or two election cycles. Reagan, for example, began “running” for president in 1964 (i.e. this is when he began inserting himself and his philosophy into the Republican Party process). He wasn’t elected until a quarter century later. In between we had Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter — both “our” guys, and theirs — who together helped paved the way, unintentionally I’m sure, for Reagan’s ideology to be accepted.
“What are we small gov’t conservatives supposed to do? Vote for McCain instead of Hillary since the US won’t become an EU-style Social Democratic-nee-socialist nation until 2023 under McCain instead of 2018 under Hillary? Is the choice between McCain and Hillary a choice between arthritic creeping socialism and non-arthritic creeping socialism?”
*** I feel your pain. I’m not being facetious. The US system allows for only 2 practical choices for president. The Republican candidate may be seriously flawed, but the Democrat candidates are off the reservation.
I, personally, will take part of a loaf instead of none. Then, I’ll support congressional and senatorial candidates who will also espouse my philosophy. If what you say about McCain is true, he also needs at least 60 senators to implement his legislation. I like Bush on the war, but oppose him on immigration. I used my senators and congressmen to block that policy.
The US system has rules, and operating procedures. Understand how it works, and work within it, and you’ll increase your chances of victory.
“McCain did not win the majority of the conservative vote in New Hampshire (Romney did), South Carolina (Huckabee), and Florida (Romney). In all 3 states, he won because he attracted independents, centrists, and Democratic crossovers. My God, we economic conservatives are in the wilderness, already. Now we’re not even allowed to have our own primaries?”
*** The same rules applied to both parties. This is the system, like it or not, until the system is changed. Please don’t take the following personally, since I’m just making a general comment. If conservatives were less concerned about whining about the unfairness of the system, and acted more strategically, maybe we’d be more successful. We had 2 somewhat “liberal” candidates vying for votes — McCain and Rudy, with Rudy a non-player until Florida — and 8 “conservatives” dividing up the remaining votes. So surprise, McCain gets the momentum.
No one can tell Ron Paul, Huckabee, etc. to get out of the race and leave the field to Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter, or whoever the alleged best representative is. But at some point the people who aren’t going to win need to put their egos aside and get out of the way of the real race. If they couldn’t prevail in 2008, they should use the next 4 years to build a more successful coalition.
“ With a Hillary Presidency, I’m counting on us spanking them again in 2010.”
*** I’m sure Ralph Nader had the same thought about Bush. This strategy only works with a complete incompetent in the White House (like Carter). Both Bill Clinton and GW Bush survived this process and won re-election. Once in office, Hillary will get re-elected. The media will hide or downplay her incompetency, and glorify all the social welfare programs she proposes.
And in the mean time, a lot more babies will die when we lose the chance to nominate someone other than a radically pro-choice Supreme Court nominee, which is an absolute certainty under Hillary or Obama.
By the way, this same kind of arguments you made prevailed in 1992 when conservatives couldn’t actively support Bush 41. So we got Clinton. And with Clinton, we now have his wife in 2008. The damage Clinton did to this country in the 90s never would have happened, and Hillary would be no threat at all because she’d be a non-entity.
Elections are about power as well as ideology. And there are unintended consequence to sitting them out, or not playing within the pragmatic rules of the game.
“I can’t wait until Hillary gets situated in the Oval Office, and invites the Democratic leaders of a nearly-60-vote-proof Democratic Senate and a Democratically-dominated House. I’m going to do everything I can to assure that happenstance.”
*** The Chinese have an old saying: Be careful what you wish for. You may get it (and a lot more than you bargained for too)!
Mickey G: My analysis is about the Presidential election only.
In certain local or congressional cases, independent parties have been successful electorally. They tend not to last though, because they are built around personalities. (The Reform Party elected Jesse Ventura governor, but collapsed in Minnesota after he left office.) Here and there Libertarian candidates get elected at local levels.
Nationally, we’ve had some third party senators/congressmen, but they’ve never risen past one or two at a time, and again once that personality left office, the seat returned to the two parties that control the election process. Or, like Senator Buckley in NY state in the 70’s, they win with 34% of the vote because the Dems and Liberal parties nominate different candidates who split the vote. After one term Buckley was voted out of office.
There has never been a successful 3rd party national movement in US history that succeeded in winning the White House. At best, the Republicans replaced a Whig party that collapsed and went out of business, thus preserving the 2 party system.
Change is possible by continuing to work within the two established parties. Any other presidential election strategy is ineffective. If your intention is to voice a protest by not voting or going 3rd party, you will voice a protest. Hillary/Obama will then ignore it, and then use the next 4 years to button up their hold on power. And having left the Republican Party, Republican candidates will move even farther left to hold on to what little power they have left.
“What I’m asking is: if the Republican party nominates a candidate like Lieberman, who represents exactly 0% of my ideological views, the same as the Democratic candidate, what do I do? Do I change parties and vote for a candidate that also represents 0% of my ideological views? Or do I vote for Lieberman simply to ensure that someone with an R by their name gets the office?”
*** Patrick: First I’d say that it’s highly unlikely that the Republican candidate will share 0% of your views. It may be a miniscule percentage, but their beliefs won’t be identical to Hillary/Obama. So with all due respect, I’d first say that we have to stop analyzing things rhetorically, and look at the actual issues and circumstances.
But if at the end of the day you came to an objective conclusion that 0% difference exists, I’d say this. In a political system that allows for only 2 real choices (Dem or Rep), pick a party and work within it to change that ideology. The Dems and Reps control the election process. One of these parties will hold power. Building a 3rd party is not a practical short, or even long term option [see “Why Vote for a Winner?]
If your goal cannot be to elect a candidate, then make it a goal of holding onto the ability to make change by recognizing where power actually lies (i.e. the 2 party system), and understand how that 2 party system works.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008
Phil, et al:
I agree with your approach. The person who doesn't vote "to make a statement" is like the suicide bomber who blows himself up and takes a lot of innocent people with him "to make a statement." What was his statement?
Comment by sedonaman | February 4, 2008
Phil,
You’re an ultimate insider. You need to empathize with us outsiders, the great unwashed masses-are-asses.
Please don’t take the following personally, since I’m just making a general comment. If conservatives were less concerned about whining about the unfairness of the system, and acted more strategically, maybe we’d be more successful.
If McCain wins the nomination (not a sure bet this date by any means), then he’ll have won it due to circumstances beyond our control: (1) The mix of Republican candidates, with McCain squeezing thru the interstices; & (2) The states that held the earliest primaries & the demographic and political makeup of the voters in those states, the date of those primaries being decided by the party elite in those states.
Talk Radio appropriately assailed McCain as a functional RINO,whose record since 2000 is almost indistinguishable from a garden variety liberal’s record, but circumstances beyond our control resulted in McCain’s win in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.
Sorry, Phil, but we small gov’t conservatives are impotent and powerless here. We can change neither the demographics nor the early-primary states.
What would you do strategically to insure that the early primary process doesn’t disfavor conservatives? I’m very curious.
Reagan, for example, began “running” for president in 1964 (i.e. this is when he began inserting himself and his philosophy into the Republican Party process). He wasn’t elected until a quarter century later. In between we had Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter — both “our” guys, and theirs — who together helped paved the way, unintentionally I’m sure, for Reagan’s ideology to be accepted.
It was 16 years between 1964 and 1980, but this is a quibble.
Hillary alone will pave the way.
The prevailing wisdom at Davos was that US economic unipolarism is history, that the EU has achieved economic parity with the US despite EU tax rates being 10% or so higher than ours, and that the US, the EU, and China are now or will soon-to-be economic peers. The US dollar is nosediving; nobody is the Bush administration is lifting a finger to support it. Our Current Account or Balance of Payments deficit keeps rising. Low US interest rates needed to prevent a total collapse of the housing industry do not attract the massive investments the US economy needs. There is no fiscal discipline re our deficit and debt. The next President must raise taxes. All past tax increases have damaged the long-term health of our economy; all past tax cuts have improved it.
Gov’t policies have not strictly caused but facilitated the perilous condition our economy is in. Since Hillary believes the free market is the problem and gov’t the solution, any Hillary fix will at least be the tipping point, the straw, or the last grain of sand that causes the 150-meter dune to cascade.
We conservatives can pave the way by letting Hillary do what she does best.
Re your Reagan analogy. Let’s hope there’s a Reagan clone somewhere. Whoever that individual is, he or she is an unknown. Thompson didn’t have fire in his belly. Huckabee is an economic populist. Newt has had his day in the sun.
What I fear is that the world has paradigm-shifted, and that the electorate has warmed to socialism. If Reagan were alive today, even he might lose the war.
By the way, this same kind of arguments you made prevailed in 1992 when conservatives couldn’t actively support Bush 41. So we got Clinton. And with Clinton, we now have his wife in 2008. The damage Clinton did to this country in the 90s never would have happened, and Hillary would be no threat at all because she’d be a non-entity.
Exactly. And what happened in 1994? The Gingrich Revolution. Clinton’s triangulating, vowing to espouse no new major policies past 1994 and, instead, simply playing the 2 parties off against each other. The result? A dozing, inactive fed’l gov’t, every small gov’t conservative’s wet dream. A resounding defeat of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party by Clinton’s centrist DNC, and the ascendancy, if only for 4 or so years, of true small gov’t conservatives.
In effect, Clinton’s victory was the best possible thing that could have happened for the conservative movement.
Elections are about power as well as ideology. And there are unintended consequences to sitting them out, or not playing within the pragmatic rules of the game.
The Chinese have an old saying: Be careful what you wish for. You may get it (and a lot more than you bargained for too)!
2008 may be an exception to those rules.
As an ultimate political insider, Phil, you’re prejudiced towards doing what you’ve done so well these past decades: Act. Consider not acting. Sure, we conservatives might be able to repel the 4 boats of Commies trying to ford the Oder River but all that would mean is that the millions of others who successfully crossed the Oder now have us flanked on both sides.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 4, 2008
Live Free:
I understand your frustration. But not acting (or acting on the hope that things will get so bad that one day they get good) just runs against my common sense.
I’ve succeeded at the things I’ve done in life because I’ve understood the environment I was in, and made the best of it. I never let my frustration with the system put me into positions where I self-isolated and therefore had no power to affect change. Instead, I worked within those confines to build allies to eventually win my points. It’s led me to great success in every political issue I’ve had a direct involvement with, and a pretty good life professionally as well.
I’m not willing to sit out 2008 by not voting or going 3rd party in the hope that Hillary or Obama will screw up enough to give us another 1994. If the disaffected conservative ideologues leave the party in 2008, where will this new revolution come from? The Republican Party needs people now more than ever who will actually stay and fight for conservative principles. Abandoning it because the “wrong” candidate used the same rules as everyone else to get the nomination seems shortsighted and, ultimately, counterproductive. Never let rhetoric and hyperbole take on the same level of substance as real-world calculations.
If this makes me an “insider”, well, I can live with that.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 4, 2008
Phil,
I understand what you're saying - I don't disagree with your premise about the consequences of not voting or voting third party. It may sound hyperbolic to say "what if a Republican candidate represents 0% of my views", but given the current climate and the fact that a former Democrat who, regardless of how some Republicans may worship him for his supposedly pro-war views, is an unabashed leftist liberal in any regard is being considered for the Republican vice presidency (behind a Republican president who once threatened to switch parties to shift the Republican balance of power in the Senate), it would take very very little to get to that point from here. In that event, spending 40 years fighting battles within either party in order to steer it toward conservative principles would be too little too late - the damage done would be irreversible. Fortunately we have both houses of Congress to work with as well, but I simply could not support a presidential candidate who is a leftist just because he calls himself a Republican. If there's no difference, or the differences are so minute as to have no relevance, then I don't care which candidate wins, and I'll go about reforming the party by supporting a better candidate in the next primary - principled pragmatism, in my opinion.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 5, 2008
Patrick:
I'd be curious to see how you would have acted in each presidential election from 1960-on, using the criterion above to make your decisions.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2008
Phil, seems to me that the Republican Party has outlived it's usefulness like its predecessor did when the Republican emerged. As I look at today's Republican Party I see an organization that embodies all of the platform of the 1980 Democrat Party…pretty scary huh? That is hard to live with and deserves to die a quick death.
On the other hand the current Democrat Party has gone beyond facism into full socialism which is even worse.
The solution is not reform but removal. Maybe Ron Paul will be the heart of a movement to replace the Party.
Comment by Mickey G | February 5, 2008
Mickey G: It will be interesting to track what influence Paul has on the party in 2012 if things work out as catastrophically as many people at IC are predicting, assuming (a) a McCain presidency is as bad as feared, or (b) Hillary/Obama consolidate power rather than screw up so badly they’re one-term presidents.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2008
Phil,
I understand your frustration. But not acting (or acting on the hope that things will get so bad that one day they get good) just runs against my common sense.
You can flip me off. It’s actually nice to be flipped off by someone as gravitas-laden as you.
But, does it run against common sense?
(1) Excepting the tax cuts enacted in the dim mists of prehistory, Bush’s economic policies have been those of any garden-variety Progressive. If anything, McCain is to the left of Bush on economic issues. Can we trust McCain on the economy?
(2) Bob Novak has confirmed that McCain did object to Alito because Alito wore his conservatism “on his sleeve”. Can we trust McCain on judges?
(3) Andrew McCarthy, one of your peers insofar as being laden with gravitas is concerned, wrote a substance-filled, thought-provoking article on McCain’s credentials as CiC.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE5MDE4ZDA2OTIyYzA2NzJiNDkyNGQxNjA2YzNhYWI=
Can we trust McCain even on defense issues?
Electing McCain would be a victory for conservatives? Where’s the sense in that, much less common sense?
I’ve succeeded at the things I’ve done in life because I’ve understood the environment I was in, and made the best of it.
Granted, but has your decades of success made you hidebound? Perhaps the current environment is without precedent. Perhaps the conventional wisdom no longer applies.
I’m not willing to sit out 2008 by not voting or going 3rd party in the hope that Hillary or Obama will screw up enough to give us another 1994.
Fair enough. I am.
The Republican Party needs people now more than ever who will actually stay and fight for conservative principles. Abandoning it because the “wrong” candidate used the same rules as everyone else to get the nomination seems shortsighted and, ultimately, counterproductive.
If we vote for McCain, we’ll be telling the Republican Party: “I affirm what you’ve been doing, and how you’ve been doing it”, However, if we withdraw our fealty, our money, and our votes, we’ll send the opposite message.
If they’re not fighting for conservative principles, why should we conservatives support them? I’m not talking just McCain, but Bush, too, and the Republican Congress of 2001-2007 and the Congress of today. By voting for McCain, we’re rewarding a party that’s betrayed conservatism.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me time after time after time after time …
Never let rhetoric and hyperbole take on the same level of substance as real-world calculations.
I was not being rhetorical or hyperbolic when I asked you this: Since the early primary season has involved demographics and party-boss-control of primary dates beyond our power to change, what are your pragmatic recommendations to return control of this Republican primaries to conservative voters? I surmise you didn’t answer the question because you can’t. To real-world factuals, you essentially responded by repeating the conventional wisdom: “You can’t win if you don’t play”.
If you’re the insider you resume indicates, tell them that there’s a lot of us conservatives out here who are really pissed off, and that arguments trying to convince us to support the Republican Party, even when professed by someone as august and awesome as you are, don’t cut it, anymore.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 5, 2008
LiveFreeDieFree, I agree with your sentiments. Let me paraphrase an old quote again: the meek will inherit the Republican Party everyone else will migrate! Maybe all that are disenchanted should begin by:
Returning all campaign material to the sender marked refused
Not donating to campaigns or action groups and telling each of them why (in my case this is a small number of $2K).
Comment by Mickey G | February 5, 2008
Live Free:
No one is “flipping you off,” unless the simple act of disagreeing with what say equals this.
You stated your reasoning, and the assumptions that ground it. I stated mine, and the assumptions that ground it. I haven’t condemned you for your point of view. I’ve just laid out a case why I believe it won’t accomplish the things you expect, just as you’ve reacted to mine.
I thought this was the purpose of dialogue. But maybe I’ve misjudged the exchange.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2008
“I was not being rhetorical or hyperbolic when I asked you this: Since the early primary season has involved demographics and party-boss-control of primary dates beyond our power to change, what are your pragmatic recommendations to return control of this Republican primaries to conservative voters? I surmise you didn’t answer the question because you can’t.”
*** When have the primaries ever been “controlled” by conservatives?
Iowa and NH have always been first. There was actually a state-initiated revolt this year to bundle primaries and/or move them up. Primaries are run by states with the national parties setting some parameters, but not in complete “control”. They can cajole and threaten penalties (which more than likely will be withdrawn at convention time), but ultimately the states decide when, how and where to vote.
You want to change the primary system? Take over the state party structures as a solid first step. However, only active party members get to play in that arena. Non voters, or people who align with a third party, have no influence at the sate or national party level.
This is the best awesome and august advice I can offer. But it only pertains to people who want to remain active in the two party system.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2008
Phil,
In the 1st paragraph of your response, you disagreed with what I wrote based upon your "common sense" telling you I was wrong.
How can I respond? By challenging your common sense? What good would that do? Any resulting dialogue would be hyperbolic & visceral. Alluding to your “common sense” is the logical equivalent of flipping me off.
But, gambit refused. I prefer ratiocination.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 5, 2008
Live Free — we're all led by our own common sense. My experiences/frame of reference is different than yours, which leads me to different conclusions than you. It was a benign statement, which is why I didn't say "common sense" period, as if there is only one way of viewing the world.
Don't take it so personally. If I want to call someone an a**hole, I'll call them an a**hole. You won't have any doubt if I'm insulting you.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2008
Phil,
Better.
Become an activist, huh? Is that your solution? Establish a 527? Challenge the power brokers? Get real, Phil. 99.999% of us can’t do that. Even if we tried, it would be the ultimate exercise in futility. The only time-honored avenue we of the masses-are-asses have is withholding our fealty, our money, & our votes.
Essentially, you’re asking me to challenge you. You’ve already stated your opinion of me: What I’m saying makes no common sense. If I challenged you, you’d eviscerate me because you consider me a naif. Your political instincts bred in academia and the gutter of politics won’t allow anybody but those who really understand how the world works to play your game.
The conventional wisdom used to be that candidates ran towards their party’s extremes during the primaries, and towards the center during the general election. That CW sure doesn’t apply to the Republican side. If McCain wins, he’ll win because he ran towards the center. It doesn’t much apply to the Democratic side, either, because all 3 contenders are basically garden-variety liberals whose differences on policy issues can’t be much appreciated except by policy wonks.
There is a hypothetical solution: Limit primary voting to those who declare their party. Independents need not apply.
I sense that you and the rest of the power brokers rigged the primary system to work the say it does to diminish the impact of the more ideologically-inclined voters, or for some other reason that you and the rest of the power brokers believe is best for the country.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 5, 2008
Phil,
I didn't take it personally, but I did take the "common sense" comment to be a brush-off.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 5, 2008
Live Free:
Glad the miscommunication seems to be over.
Ok, you think my comments are unrealistic. What, exactly, leads you to believe that your strategy will be successful?
The starting point is a system that you now contend cannot be influenced by individual action (i.e. your rejection of my “get involved in the state party" comment). Why will this system now respond to people who don’t vote, or move to a 3rd party, rather than focus in 2012 on the people who still participate as I suggested in my essay?
What actual, tangible, forces will come into play to have the Republican Party turn to non-voters and outsiders in 2012? What’s the real-world details driving this, not simply the aspirations and frustrations of people who are disenchanted with 2008?
Or, if the Republican Party is no longer relevant, how exactly will a new third party arise and become politically viable? The Libertarians have been around for decades. Will you take over them, or build a new party? How long will it take to achieve national electoral success?
I’ve put forth my scenario. Now let me critique the policy details of yours or others. This isn’t about being disenchanted with the status quo and voicing discontent. It’s about a strategy to make gains to achieve an objective. What exactly is that pragmatic strategy to achieve the ideological goals you desire?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2008
"I sense that you and the rest of the power brokers rigged the primary system …"
By the way, just as a point of clarification, I haven't been actively involved in politics since the mid-90s. I spent the last 10+ years in the private sector building a couple of companies with my business partners. I don't consult for any candidates, and don't attend any party functions. I know a couple of elected officials at the national level and can get their staff to return my calls. But this hardly makes me a "power broker".
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 5, 2008
Phil,
I was born during Reagan's second term, so the intricacies of the Republican elections since 1960 may be a bit lost on me. Based on what I know of the candidates who've run on the Republican ticket since 1960, I don't know that there are any I would have withheld voting for, with the possible exception Ford. I'm just saying, a Lieberman Republican ticket, for example, would be a bridge too far for me. At the end of the day, the entire purpose for political parties is to reflect an ideology, so if it comes to point where one ceases to reflect a different ideology than the other, then something's got to give. Voting for the "R" only to spite the "D" is pointless unless there's a difference between the two. Like I said, I'm not saying this is necessarily the election where that time has come. All I'm saying is that pragmatism has to be exercised in the defense of your ideology - not purely in defense of a party.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 6, 2008
Phil,
The NLRB 24-hour cooling-off period has expired, so I can respond now.
I noticed your new Debacalypse Now article. Wow! Man, are you energized. I’ll post my response there.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | February 6, 2008
Live Free — look forward to your comments. Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 6, 2008