The Republicans aren't the only party tearing themselves up from the inside this election season; the Democrats have been doing it for years. You can see it in the strings of Gather posts, hear it in the coffee shops, but almost always it's the Democrats who say, "I'm not going to vote because there's no choice being offered. These two candidates are the same."
When have you heard a Republican say that? No self-respecting Republican is going to suggest that their candidate is no better than a Democrat. If you've seen it happen, congratulations. You my friend should buy lottery tickets.
There is a significant segment of liberals who have such high expectations for what they would call "their" candidate that they cannot see a difference between what is being offered by the two parties.
I believe this tendency affects moderates only slightly, but is really noticeable on the fringe.
Let's put my assertion to the test. Answer two questions:
1) Are you more of a Republican or a Democrat? If you do not wish to associate yourself with either party, let us know if you are more conservative or liberal (that will do for our purposes here).
2) Do you think the differences between the parties are not significant enough to warrant going to the polls?
My premise again is this: A significant number of Democrats will badmouth their own candidate for being too Republican. Virtually no Republican would say their candidate is too Democrat-like, because they know it to be nonsense.
That has made all the difference in the past few elections.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 29
Joe, where do you see yourself on the spectrum? I agree that the Republican candidates have disappointed a lot of conservatives, but is it enough to keep the loyal away from the polls? As no fan of Bush I hope so, but is it wishful thinking? That it takes the current state of affairs to disenchant the conservatives, wouldn't that lend support to my premise?
I can't say that I identify with some of your premises though. Here in Missouri, incumbent Jim Talent is battling for his Senate seat against former Gubernatorial candidate Claire McCaskill.
I don't think much of Jim Talent (net negative, more because of his refusal to take a stand on things like raising the minimum wage, gutting Medicaid, etc. than because of his political party), but I actually don't like Claire McCaskill much.
When she was battling for the Dem nomination for Governor, I thought she was screechy, annoying and just not very likeable. She took the party's nomination and I held my nose and voted for her vs. bonehead Matt Blunt (who won).
Now, running against Talent, McCaskill looks a lot better, and of the two candidates, she's the one NOT pandering to radical right wing interests, so she'll get my vote in the primary.
I would never withhold my vote, simply because I don't like the Dem candidate. If the Pubs are running a better candidate, I'll vote for him or her. That's pretty rare, because the Pubs seem to run more zealots than they used to, and I can easily say those folks are the WORSE of two evils.
My view is we will suffer the secular progression and loss of any Nationalism via the Dems/Libs and look a lot like Europe very soon. Overwhelmed and stagnated by unobtainable social programs and secular, so no moral compass to find values worth standing for, let alone fighting for.
I do not bitch about what I don't have, I am grateful for what I do have. ('You can't always get what you want, but if you try some times, you get what you need - R. Stones).
I do not see any thing good about having the Dems/Libs redistributing wealth (see Great Society plans), or hauling in as much money as possible to Washington to dither away the majority in "administration costs" and disperse the rest to quiet every whinner and legislate every need.
No thanks. Socialism is GREAT for Canadians and the French, they can't f'ing give it away. (Don't park your car in any Paris street).
Candace, I too began as a young and enthusiastic Republican, and moved into the moderate-who-will-never-vote-Republican-again camp. I wonder if having changed political outlook over the years makes someone more likely to vote . . .
Eric, thanks for the feedback or your local choice. I'm glad you are voting.
Capt, I too always see a clear difference between candidates, though as I said above, I will vote for either a Democrat or third party candidate. I think party of orign matters a great deal, with the rare exception of a McCain or Lieberman.
I really appreciate the spirit in which your article is posed, and furthermore, I appreciate your approach.
In my case, your hypothesis is correct. It's not the name of the party I relish; it is their intended function, and the result of that function. I'm a "values" voter. I never look at the vote as a "political" one. Therefore, I vote on the candidate that best fits my values and beliefs, regardless of the party with qhich they choose to affiliate.
Nice article, good questions. Thanks.
Having little faith in any particular "Political" party, usually this means going with the best that research and gut instinct can bring out. As mercurial as we all are as human beings, certainly there'd be no "perfect" candidate- especially now in the trying times of such things as Islamofascism and run-away illegal border hopping- one must often decypher the wheat from the chaffe when it comes to these career charletines.
The Libermann Democrats are now the exception and not the rule [in my own "twisted view" of those so inclined to consider] as evidenced by those who see things as "not liberal enough"- imagine that; "too much as not enough", now there's a hedonistic ideology...
But then we have the reversed Republican notion that one cannot be "restrictive" enough- hence the far left's bandied epithet of "natzis" and "fascists" of which any true American would never lean towards.
But NOT vote?!
It's both an honor and duty to vote. It is your one singular voice above all the rabble of percieved "entitled" politicians, that with all of us points to how we are to be represented. When's the last time we as a voting populace REMEMBERED that WE are the deciding factor of law? Many would say that Judges determine law- no, that's not true. Our vote and responcible keeping of individual freedom dictates just and plural law.
We've lost sight of that.
Very good- Ron.
Russell leans primarily to the right, and can't imagine not voting. That sounds like the trend I think I perceive. I agree that voting isn't just a right, but a duty as well.
Interesting thesis, but let me offer an antithesis. The mainstream of the liberal/democratic attitude is to live and let live. To admit we all have opinions, to not assume different opinions are wrong. Such people argue and bicker in order to discover if their is a, perhaps hidden, truth. They don't get caught up in silly issues like gay marriage.
But none of this is to say that as individuals they don't each have a strong sense of ethics or a clear view of what they consider moral. They simply aren't (and no disrespect inteded) herd animals in general.
However, if that core communal sense of the right to be different is pushed this oxymoronic "community of inconoclasts" will push back -- hard.
"great article, thanks for sharing thearticle, I don't plan to vote because both sides have thier shortcomings... "
So if offered the choice of having your hand cut off or your head cut off you wouldn't express a preference because both options have their shortcomings?
You know, you could convince me I'm a conservative.{wry grin}
Yah.
There was a coup staged here in America over the last 20 years, and We The People slept through it. Was just reading about how the SEC stifled an investigation of a powerful Wall St. crook who was politically connected, and that William Jefferson, the Congressman who had 90,000 dollars in his freezer of bribe money is not only unindicted, but still a viable candidate for re-election.
The system is a joke.
As for my characterization, I'm a centrist, I like McCain and others who can work with the opposition to get things done.
Michael, low turnouts are not a riveting news story. Academics and populists may wring their hands about it, but a great many people think it's just fine if fewer people vote. It makes their vote more disproportionately effective, and they like it that way.