The political argument is often stated as the fight for the
middle, those often regarded as Independents.
Last year, John Kasich defeated Ed FitzGerald by a 63 to 33
margin. In a disastrous run by FitzGerald, it is amazing that he even received
33 percent of the vote. Did one in three voters really feel comfortable with
him governing the state?
However, such lopsided defeats are rare in diverse areas. To
win a race 55 to 45 is to win pretty comfortably. In most instances, each
candidate starts with 40 percent of the vote—those who will for him or her
based on political party alone (though gerrymandering is creating larger
margins, lowering that total to maybe 35 percent). Either way, the battle, or
where all the money is being spent, is usually on the 20 percent who could vote
either way.
A recent poll indicated that the number of Independents is
at a record level, 43 percent. I think
much of this is baloney, as many like to identify themselves as Independents
because it allows them to portray themselves as fair, just and non-partisan.
They see themselves as balanced and objective. Instead, I think in many cases,
it’s a lack of self-awareness, politically unprincipled or being uneducated on
the issues.
I once had a discussion with a newspaper editor who claimed
to be Independent. He explained, as many often do, that he had people on both
the right and left upset with him. That is probably true, for example many on
the left are upset with President Obama from time to time, but it does not
automatically make them an Independent. In fact, more delusional than Independent,
the editor believed it to be true simply because he said so.
If one is particularly principled, it’s difficult to
understand how he or she might absently float in the middle. The parties are
further apart than ever. While certainly there are some overlapping issues, one
with a defined beliefs and values will likely tune in to one party over the
other. Weak values make for wavering
support.
And if Independents were truly so, it’s likely that we
wouldn’t see the disturbingly low turnover among incumbents—especially at a
time when so many are unhappy with our government. It’s somewhat obvious that
many Independents vote simply on name recognition or political climate (as they
did in 2014).
Finally, political campaigns are spending more money than
ever. This money is noticeably spent on the middle—as it is perceived as a waste
of money to spend it on the base. They spend this money because they are
counting on a middle that doesn’t do their homework. Those who can be
influenced by often misleading commercials and literature are probably not
spending their time digging into the candidates or the issues. They can be won
over by a gimmick or a negative campaign assertion.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some true Independents—and I
respect them. They are those who are educated on the issues, particularly
economic issues, and do consider the competing arguments. They are, however,
nowhere—anywhere— near 40 percent of the electorate.
In my case, I consider myself liberal first and a Democrat
second. More importantly, I have my personal values and beliefs on how
government should operate. There is nothing magical about being a Democrat, it
just happens that their values align with mine more than Republicans. Just as I
don’t think Republicans go far enough on many issues, there are times when I
think Democrats go too far. Unfortunately, Republicans have this dual
attraction of fiscal and social conservatism, neither of which I share a
favorable opinion. But, there is an obligation, as in the case with Ed
Fitzgerald, to make the best choice—regardless political affiliation. For me, integrity
is perhaps most defining.
I would love to see more voters in the middle, truly in the
middle. I would also like to see more choice—that is, additional political
parties so that candidates would cover a spectrum of values and political
ideology and not operate in silos, obsessed with fooling the so-called
Independents.
No comments:
Post a Comment