My apologies for the gendered title, but that’s the phrase we hear so prominently each election cycle. Or in polite conversations about politics with our next door neighbors. "Oh, I vote for the man, not the party." Whenever I hear this, I think, ‘what a lot of crap.’ Before you fly off, please read on.
Like most of us here, I am a democrat. I’m sure my parents had a lot to do with that, not so much by making clear to me their party preferences but in the sorts of things they taught me to care about. I’m sure a lot of repo’s can say the same thing. But this thing about being a democrat is important to me.
Find out why below the break.
Many years ago, in my poli sci classes, I studied among other things the historic decline in the power of the organized political parties. I learned that there were some very good reasons for that decline. I have also come to appreciate that for our election victories, we democrats do depend upon the votes of an awful lot of people out there who, for one reason or another, do not identify powerfully with a particular party. And finally, I deeply appreciate that there are voters for whom matters of individual character, or experience, or perhaps a position on one particular matter are of such primary concern that they cannot simply fall into line behind a party standard bearer.
Once the elections are over, however, this thing about party becomes awfully important as the victors go about trying to figure out how to actually govern. It turns out, our Congress doesn’t work very well unless whichever party is nominally in power is able to somehow exercise normative authority over its various members in the Congress, including disciplining them from time to time. When those members rely less on their party affiliation, party funds, and party backing, and more on their individual fund-raising and leverage with the voters back home (or with a few very important ‘voters’), then governing in Congress becomes more difficult. Lieberman is the extreme example of how far this problem may go.
This party thing also becomes important with respect to the kind of leadership (or lack thereof) which emanates from the white house. Bush is perhaps the most powerful example that we will ever need that we do not just elect a man or woman to the white house – we bring in a lot of other people who we have never heard of, and who have almost as much power (and perhaps more) to really fuck things up. Some recent, prominent examples might include Kyle Sampson, Paul McNulty, Monica Goodling, Lurita Doan, Scooter Libby, Scott Jennings, Brett Tolman, and William Moschella. There are hundreds more. And though the repo’s in Congress are beginning to run from the man in the white house and these ‘underlings’, make no mistake, they are all republicans.
But one of the great ironies here is that we have created a political environment in which a President is led to believe that he and the people he selected can do no wrong, because the American people vote for the man, and not the party. This is largely the cause of the phenomenon that Robert 'Nofacts' recently described in his column -- Bush's isolation from his party. Say what you will about Nixon, he was old school enough to understand, when told by the leaders of his own party that he had lost the support of that party, that he had to go.
So here’s my point. I have taken more than a cursory look at the records of our leading contenders, and have followed their travails enough to feel very comfortable that each of those candidates, if elected, will govern as a democrat; by which I mean: that each of them believes the issue is not big or small government but good government; that with respect to foreign affairs, they believe in unilateral restraint, multilateral action, and respect for international obligations; that each has shown that systemic health care reform will be at or near the top of the priority list; that each of them has shown that a redistribution of the tax burden, at the very least, is a necessity; that each has shown that in their administration, funding education, improving the social safety net, and fostering economic justice will be important; that each of them will appoint judges that respect the rule of law and the constitution, including the bill of rights; that each of them considers diversity in all of its forms a strength, and not a weakness; that each of them subscribes to a wall of separation between church and state; and that each of them understands that the best way to ensure the future happiness of our children is to take care of the earth, rather than preparing it for the apocalypse.
And just as important, I also believe that each of these contenders, if elected, will appoint to public office an awful lot of people who identify with these values of the democratic party. And these people, who we largely will not hear about for a long time, will probably have as much of an impact on my life, and the lives of my children, as the next President of the United States.
I don’t know yet who I will be supporting when the candidates come to my small speck of the universe. That will probably be determined by how the individual candidates prioritize the things I've described above, as well as how sincere and energetic their leadership promises to be. And whoever I pick, I will be singing the praises. But I do know that come the general election, I will be voting for the party, and not the man or the woman.
Now if you want to know what brought this on, just ask me.