No Loss for Words

A presidential election year is always a hot time in the political parties.  It is a time when candidates stand before a crowd of prospective voters and tell them why the voters should choose them over the other guy.  They talk about their good judgment and the other guy’s poor judgment.  The candidates talk about the things a crowd of voters might be interested in hearing when selecting a candidate.  The candidates calculate what they need to say to get a precinct, a county or a state to vote for them. 

 

Everyone knows that there is no connection between what a candidate says during a campaign and how they act after winning the election.  The process is so cumbersome there is little accountability to the grass roots voters. 

 

Certainly voters are a necessary component in the process, but they play a part only during the election season.  Rarely do partisan elected officials put the interests of grass roots voters above any other in the process of allocating their allegiance.  Partisan processes almost always make candidates beholding to the party first.  Special interest groups that cover the whole spectrum of conservative to liberal causes constantly pressure parties and elected officials to listen to their pitch.  Most send a check for the election fund along with a cause they support.  “Just wanted to let you know that we support you, and oh by the way, this issue is really important to our members.  Did you know there are umpteen thousand members in our group?”

 

Presidential primaries are a unique type of process because they are spread out over an extended period of time.  The time alone gives the candidates a chance to focus their campaign patter on time sensitive issues as they travel from state to state.  In addition, the demographic variety of different regions force candidates to balance things said in one to things they want to say in another.

 

During the primary process candidates from the same party are forced to distinguish the differences between themselves while at the same time they supposedly support the same party platform.  The core values of a candidate are generally identified with one of the major parties; because everyone knows that they are the only choices we are given.  In a partisan system, it is nearly impossible to have an agenda that favors the citizenry.

 

The political season gives us all an opportunity to compare a bunch of things.  We compare the philosophies of one candidate to another, we compare the philosophies of one party to another, we compare a candidate to a party and we compare ourselves to both candidates and parties.

 

After all the comparing, we are thoroughly confused.

 

A candidate running for office that has never held elective position before is given great latitude in developing who and what he/she is in the political arena.  We listen to their ideas about how they will make a difference after the election.  We usually settle for candidates like this when we can not see a good reason to support an incumbent.  For me, a past voting record is a good measure of what we can expect in the future for incumbents.  Certainly there are occasions when elected officials vary from the original path, but it is the exception rather than the rule.

 

Now, the presidential primary season is over and the infighting within the parties is over.  Candidates from each party cut each other to the bone until the party selection is made then everyone comes together under the party tent and profess their admiration and support for the other guy.  “Those nasty things I said about you in the primary were not personal and I didn’t mean any of it.  You are a great candidate and I’m with you 100%.”  It doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, they all do it.  The primary process forces candidates to present themselves as the one best exemplifying the party values within the context of the times. 

 

The general election is just the opposite.  In the campaign for the general election, the candidates are required to restate their positions to better appeal to voters not affiliated with a party.  The independent voters define the agenda in a general election since partisan voters rarely vote out of the party.  Certainly some will, but generally, “dyed in the wool” partisans are blinded by the party rhetoric to the point where they can’t bring themselves to consider someone from the other team.

 

Candidates tend to come to the fence to offer the broadest appeal to the most voters.  That causes problems with voters trying to figure out who to vote for.  During the primary, it’s all about differences, then in the general election it’s all about similarities.

 

For me, I look at a voting record to decide.  For me past is prologue.  I look for how a candidate voted on issues for a period of time.  That gives me confidence that a person has values he will stand by.  Whether I agree with his politics or not, a record of voting and supporting issues over time gives me the confidence that I can predict future actions.  This is a process our government uses to vet judicial candidates.  How a judge ruled on cases over the years gives an observer some sense of how he will rule in the future.

 

In the political arena, having a record indicates that you have experience.  If you have consistently supported an issue in the past, we can logically expect you to support similar issues in the future.  Good or bad.  If you have demonstrated character and leadership in the positions and votes, that’s good.  If you have been a partisan butthead, you have to take credit for that too.

 

Candidates with a short record force us to look at other factors to help us decide.  Personal things become more important when you have little to go on.  Issues of character are considered more with less experienced candidates. 

 

In elections where a political butthead incumbent is facing a novice, the novice is often considered the lesser of two evils.

This year, we have a presidential election with an experienced older guy on the Republican side and a charismatic inexperienced younger guy on the Democratic side.

 

For me, I have been a moderate all along and John McCain has been my preferred candidate since 2000.  His record of voting demonstrates that he is not a party hack.  I like that.  His record in the Senate shows his ability to work in a bipartisan manner.  He worked cooperatively with Democrats and Republicans to keep the government operating when the partisan buttheads melted down.  Sure, there have been times when his position wasn’t the one I would have taken, but time and again I have respected his judgment on issues.

 

For the Democrat, I don’t have a lot of information to make a good analysis.  Obama has been a member of the Senate for less than one term.  He was a member of the Illinois State Senate for one term.  His votes on issues have been consistently the most liberal of most members of the body.  The lack of government voting record suggest that we look deeper into his personal life for insight.

 

That is where choices he makes about who he associates with, what church he attends and things like that become measuring devices.

 

Barak Obama does not have a record that builds confidence for moderate voters.  His liberal record suggests a significant shift from expectations we had with Bush 2.  And that is the problem most of us have today.

 

Bush was such a disappointment for folks in the middle, the suggestion that McCain would be a different kind of Republican is hard to believe in view of his support of the presidents agenda.

 

Voters were onboard with the vision laid out by Bush, he lost us on the execution.  Bush did what the party wanted him to do.  His past record should have given a good indication of his future and since he would never have to appease voters again, he reverted to character.  The Bush we see is the real George Bush.

 

The challenge McCain faces is to articulate his vision for the country that allows him to do a primary election shape shift to separate himself from the president, but still appeal to voters that shared that vision.

 

McCain is a man of character and is willing to live and die by his record.  That means something to me.  I have an idea where he is coming from and where he wants to take our country based upon his record.  I like that.

 

As a voter that tends to be in the middle, I support candidates that resist allegiance to a party first, but have a character that reflects their stand on issues based upon actions every day. 

 

I think our country has not been well served by the Republicans on the national stage.  They had the power and the ability to be good stewards of government after the long time control by the Democrats.  The power trip was too much for them.  In the end it was all about partisan gamesmanship.  They were so full of themselves, they betrayed the voters without hesitation.

 

Having said that, I still think John McCain is the best choice for our president.  At the time his party was acting like a spoiled rich kid, he did not just throw in the towel and give in to the party pressure to toe the line.

 

If Bush has poisoned the well for Republican candidates, that will be a heck of a price we all will pay when Obama leads us down a different path.

 

Posted on July 23, 2008 at 6:50 am in Snohomish County Political Commentary, Snohomish Washington   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL