I think that Joe Lieberman's resounding victory over Ned Lamont further proves a thesis I have believed for some time now: moderates don't vote in primaries. As I have said before, I believe that the majority of the country is fairly moderate, either left or right. Most people classify themselves as Republicans or Democrats, but few people are far from the middle of the political spectrum. However, politics is shifting further and further from moderate over the last several years, perhaps even decades. The populace remains moderate, but the candidates are increasingly fringe and radical. The best logical explanation for this that I can think of is that the moderates do not take part in candidate selection. Instead the radicals in both parties choose the candidates, selecting like-minded politicians. Then when the time comes for the election most Americans vote straight party line, putting the hard right or left candidate in power because they represent the party the moderate voter has chosen to be part of.
Lieberman was almost an example of this -- one that would have been unprovable had he respected his party's nomination of Lamont. He is viewed by the general public as moderate -- whether he should be or not is irrelevant, that's how he's viewed. The hard left saw him as too far right, and quite a bit too far at that. And they overwhelmingly rejected him in the primary. Had he accepted this we might never have known whether this was representative of most of Democrats in the state. However, Lieberman spurned his party and set off on his own believing, apparently correctly, that the people of Connecticut would favor him over Lamont, even if his party's primary did not. He was right and won easily. The majority of the Democrats in Connecticut did not vote for Lamont, they voted for Lieberman. I believe this is because the majority of Democrats in Connecticut believe themselves to be moderate, and so chose the candidate branded as moderate rather than the one branded as liberal, correctly or not.
I believe that the same scenario would play out across the United States in both parties if moderate candidates had the luxury of a wealth of money and media attention needed to run as independents. Instead most moderates never see general election after a primary defeat. And the result is that the majority of Americans are not accurately or adequately represented by the government. As far as I can tell there is only one way to change this: more people have to vote in the primaries. I don't know how to generate more interest, but we all should do whatever we can to encourage everyone we can to vote in the primaries to promote better representation by our government. That is my wide sweeping and vague charge to everyone in the country. That's all for now, I'll let you know if there's anything else I need you to do later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hunter, James Davison. 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books.
j. morgan, does the book support standingout's theses? I haven't read it.
"Politics is shifting further and further from moderate over the last several years, perhaps even decades. The populace remains moderate, but the candidates are increasingly fringe and radical."
I hate to disagree with you here, but...I disagree with you. I don't think that political candidates are increasingly fringe and radical. If you and I picked radical candidates, we'd pick different ones. What do you consider radical? I think candidates fight about stuff like gay marriage and abortion to distract us from issues about justice, which as Christians should be our focus. Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, often cited by the right as radical, just aren't that radical. When it comes to the Iraq war and getting defense contracts for their states, they might talk a liberal game, but look where their votes are. For example, there is a TV-news talking point going around about how we just elected a conservative crop of Dems. I don't think that's true--I just think Dems like Tester, Webb and Casey Jr. are harder to place on a scale because their beliefs are all over the place.
So, that's a collection of rambling thoughts from me. That more people should vote, and that no one votes in primaries is indisputable: a miserable percentage turned out for the VA democratic senate primary, which is ironic considering that I think that Webb's opponent Harris Miller would have gotten crushed by Allen. Since I voted, I consider myself to have played a large role in getting Webb elected.
Something like 40-44% of eligible voters voted in this election, and between 1 and 20 voted in the primaries. Pathetic! In 2004, a knock-down, dragged-out, crazy wonderful democratic chaos of an election, just 61% of people turned out to hate on Bush or send John Kerry back to MA. WTF?
Hmm--I reread your post and I thought of something else. The interesting thing would be to see if primary VOTERS are more radical, and not necessarily the candidates. I wrote about 87 posts at my blog trying to disprove that Lamont was some sort of radical nominated by radicals and backed by radical bloggers and that Lieberman was being ostracized and punished for supporting the war. For one, Lieberman is cozy with the Bush administration--it was that, and not his support for the war by itself, that led to prominent Dems backing Lamont. And for two, Lamont is not that radical--he's a self made millionaire with 3 kids and little political experience. That he garnered 40% of the vote in a strange general election as a neophyte is kudos to him.
In conclusion, I don't know what point I'm trying to make anymore, except that I think you're both on to something but not quite right in your support of your argument.
Well?
"I disagree with you. I don't think that political candidates are increasingly fringe and radical."
Okay, I don't really know how to argue something like that, since its mostly perception, as you point out. I'm not saying that its only liberals or anything like that, I think that politics is becoming increasingly polarized and candidates avoid the middle. Which is why having a majority matters so much these days, because you rarely get the two parties in agreement on anything. If politicians were more moderate their views would be easier to align more often. It is my perception and experience that there are usually small differences of opinion between the average Republican and Democrat that I meet, but very large differences of opinion between politicians. This says to me that the politicians are more polarized than the people.
Either way we agree that more people need to vote in general and especially in primaries in order to have good representation, which is really my main point. Notice that I imply that Ned Lamont may not be liberal and Lieberman may not be moderate, but that is how they are perceived by most people, which is really all that's important when considering why people voted one way or the other in the current election. If you feel that Lamont's "netroot" supporters are not liberal, however, then I have to just accept a disagreement of opinion on that account.
Thanks for that comment--you made some good points and cleared some things up.
"Ned Lamont may not be liberal and Lieberman may not be moderate, but that is how they are perceived by most people."
You're absolutely right about that--I should have conceded that sooner. Whatever the truth is, that's the way Lieberman and Lamont were made out to be and what people saw. Great point.
I do agree that politicians have large differences between them, but I also think they all know how to work the system once they get in there. There was a great New York Times article about John Murtha doing just that--the article has gone behind the Times's Select firewall, but the text is still available. Google "Trading Votes for Pork Across the House Aisle" and you'll find copies of it. Here's a passage:
In the last year, Democratic and Republican floor watchers say, Mr. Murtha has helped Republicans round up enough Democratic votes to narrowly block a host of Democratic proposals: to investigate federal contracting fraud in Iraq, to reform lobbying laws, to increase financing for flood control, to add $150 million for veterans’ health care and job training, and to exempt middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax.
In one case that particularly irked Democratic partisans, Mr. Murtha led three others in voting against a politically vulnerable Louisiana Democrat’s proposal to divert money intended to be spent on base closings to research prosthetic limbs for veterans. It failed by one vote.
For their “nays” on that and other matters, all four Democrats were rewarded. In the weeks after the vote, they claimed credit for a total of more than $250 million in earmarks in the 2006 appropriations bills. Mr. Murtha alone brought home about $80 million for his district and $120 million for his state, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group that tracks such projects.
I agree with your main point--politicians would get more things done for EVERYONE, and not just their states, if more people voted in primaries as well as general elections. So, how should we act on that? Is there a flaw in our voting culture that savvy politicians are responding to by talking all over the place and then working the system once they're elected? Or is it something else? I'm interested to know what you think.
I think the problem is apathy. The average American cannot be bothered to vote. Many of those who do vote try to fit it in to their schedule, and if it takes too long they give up. Its not a priority. Its seen as a magnificent privilege. At best its seen as an obligation, at worst an inconvenience.
Why is this happening? I wish I knew. Part of it has to be American individualism and laziness. The individualism tells them not to care because it probably won't affect their lives much either way, and the laziness tells them its too much work with too little return. Maybe that is part of the problem -- people don't see too much change in their day to day lives (if they're not soldiers) due to who is in government. Change is slower to reach individuals across the nation, so it seems like it doesn't matter.
Maybe the problem is pathological. Maybe the reason people don't vote often is because they don't feel like their candidates represent their views anyway, so why bother? And the candidates don't represent their views because they don't vote in primaries, so they aren't important for getting and keeping office.
What is the best response to this? I'm not sure. I wish I had a good answer. Until I come up with one I'm going to keep complaining about the problem hoping that someone else will come up with a good solution. That and I'll encourage everyone I know, of any political party, to vote in the primaries every single election cycle.
That should say "Its not seen as a magnificent privilege"
Now all is clear, many thanks for the information.
Post a Comment