Situational vs. Ideological Voting
Earlier this month, at Divided We Stand, MW again made his case for divided government. By-and-large, I agree with him; the evidence of the effectiveness of divided government is clear and compelling. But while I agree with the objective of divided government, I’m not yet convinced that systematic, universal efforts to vote for this objective, exclusive of other considerations, is the most-productive approach to healing our ailing national morale. Here’s why.
I will likely vote for the Republican nominee for president in 2008, for two reasons: (1) I’m a Republican, albeit a moderate one. (2) Like MW, I’m convinced of not only the merits of divided government, but also the dangers of single-party government. Accordingly, with the Dems poised to hold a majority in both Congressional chambers, I think this country would be best served by an opposite-party President, with check-and-balance authority.
On the other hand, if the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani, I may have to think twice about my vote because I fear Rudy would be just as (if not more) destructive than Bush/Rove/Cheney on foreign policy.
From all reports, Rudy suffers from an extreme inability to engage in productive give-and-take, an inability to move beyond the moments immediately after 9/11. In contrast, we need a competent international craftsman (or craftswoman), someone who can live up to the foreign-policy standards of a Nixon or Reagan, someone who can honor Teddy Roosevelt’s doctrine of speaking softly while carrying a big stick, someone who can look at the post-9/11 world and recognize that the keys to it reside in the deft de-construction of the enemy, not smash-and-burn or shock-and-awe tactics. And honestly, I think we need those traits in a President far more than we need a social moderate or opposite-party check-and-balancer.
In short, while I respect MW’s thesis on the merits of divided-government, I also believe in the old-fashioned approach of voting (regardless of party or dogma or philosophy) for the individual whom we each believe is the best (or least-bad) person for the job, considering all aspects of that job and the context of the times, the global zeitgeist, in which that job will be performed.
Cross-posted from Central Sanity.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Situational vs. Ideological Voting”
I agree with you in theory, that there are exceptions to the rule even if you believe the rule is good.
But maybe look at it this way: each person that we might consider for POTUS could potentially be one type of president if his party has the majority in Congress, and a different type of president if his party’s in the minority. So when you consider each person, you have to put it in the context of which it’s likely to be if that person gets elected, and whether or not he/she will have the constraining influence of a Congress that is willing to exercise oversight.
I actually have some of those concerns of authoritarianism with both Giuliani and Clinton. So applying my corollary to mw’s rule, I’d then say that Clinton with a Dem majority Congress worries me a heck of a lot more than Giuliani with a Dem majority Congress.
Good point, Christine. I need to think about it some more.
There is a majority in the Senate and House and then there is true control. They are not the same thing. Look at recent history. My biggest worry about the crop of Bush clones running under the Republican banner is their potential Supreme Court nominees. We’ve already seen the extreme right wing justices that Bush nominated misrepresent themselves to the Senate when being confirmed. Roberts spoke of his hesitancy to overturn previous decisions and his respect for stare decisis yet we have seen this court overturn precedent after precedent, though sometimes denying that’s what has been done. We do not need more Thomases, Scalias or Roberts but that is what every Republican candidate has sworn to provide. If they make it through a close, though nominally Democratic controlled senate the damage could last for many decades to come.
Vote for the best person, whether D or R or 3rd party.
If there is no one worth voting for DO NOT VOTE!
That sends a signal.
Right now, for Prez, I wd nt vote for any R nor Hillary, so unless Hill stumbles and Obama or Edwards makes up ground, it’ll be a 4th st. 3rd Party for me, or maybe a big NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Pete following your logic, I’d assume that you didn’t vote for Bush in 2004. But, I’d guess that you voted for him in 2004. My guess is that register party members almost always vote their party, so it’s up to Macomb county and independents to swing elections.
I had great hopes for a divided house, which were dashed to the ground by the experience of the last months.
Something has changed in the national character, and that something, IMO, has crippled the value of old rules of thumb in voting. In spite of ideological differences,(even when those differences amounted to being polar opposites), there used to be an understanding, that the other side would be given due respect and voice in policy dedisions. That understanding has been replaced by cut-throat winner take-all battles on every front and at every step.
Compromise used to mean accepting that each side would give up something and keep something. That meaning has been replaced by a reverence for ideologically pure results, and instead of true compromise, there is talk,at best, of only ‘wiggle room’ on the fringes, like throwing a crumb to the vanquished. Political convictions are spoken of in the same reverent language as is religious faith, i.e. being the one and only true path to understanding, as if it was holy writ on a Moses tablet.
Aside from foreign policy wounds to the nation, I think the greatest harm Pres. Bush has done is his dividing the country into us and them. The ‘I have a mandate’ speech should have clued us in as to what was coming.
The tragedy is that many find that to be a good thing Notions of compormise and respect are given only lip service on the way to another battle of tearing each other to pieces.
To lift he nation out of this dead-end frames of mind, I think Obama is the best hope. I’m not sure he’s electable, however, because so much of the country does not seem to want to be lifted out of this ‘us vs them ‘ mind frame. We’re apt to be inspired by talk show hosts and partisan blogs, which spur us to hate, and iideologues who promise paradidse if their views prevail.
For what it’s worth, the lesson I find in history is not that any one societal vision is inherently all good or all bad, but that we can take from all of them what is best and reject what is worst to devise a Grecian ‘golden middle’ path of our own..
So, I also am looking for a situational candidate. I’m looking for one who will understand that after the new president has been installed, one-half of the country will be unhappy. INstead of gloating that elections have consequences, I’m looking for someone who will remember that the unhappy half of the country will still be living here and still need to be considered when it comes to policy.
So, does this mean that if Obama is elected and has a Dem majority in Congress, and if a highly progressive agenda is pursued, that you will respect the right of the minority to vigorously question the policies? Or will you say that people are being obstructionists and engaging in footdragging, waiting for a perfect bill instead of agreeing with the proposals that at least try to fix the problems, etc?
It’s fine to say that you want your candidate to consider those who didn’t vote for him, but what does that mean, exactly?
CS=
My comment means, simply, that while holding my own beliefs about what is best, I would respect a true compromise reached on any policy being considered.
What ‘vigorsusly oppose’ means is exactly where we differ, because it does, too often, lead to pure obstructionism. Negotiating in the spirit of compromise is by nature entirely different than negotiating in the spirit of hanging on to the bitter end. The starting points are different.
The question is this:
Is there a baseline set of ideas, visions, and actions that the Left and Right/Democrats and Republicans agree on? Because if not, cancel Christmas. We will always be at each others throats and progress will always be slow or non-existent.
I’m sorry dear TMV readers, I don’t get partisan politics. I even hate the word “party” when it comes to politics. At the base level, we are all citizens of the USA (only the legal ones BUT that is for another discussion). An ideal President to me would seriously start with defining a set of agreed upon ideas and actions with the House and Senate. And set a time limit like FDR did with his famous “First 100 Days”. But it’s precisely this lack of unity that has turned me off from the Donkeys and Elephants awhile ago. Now I strictly vote third party or write myself in as a protest.
So I want a real situational candidate. And I don’t see one so I’ll be protesting yet again.
Doma:
To accomplish anything, you need a united gov’t. That can mean good or bad.
The problem lies w the voters, who simply refuse to punish those in power for doing nothing, or backing out on a promise.
As example, although it was silly, the Right Wing punished Bush Sr. for breaking his no New Taxes BS. While it was fiscally responsible of him to do so, at least the Right Wing Nuts were consistent.
But, the seeds of this winner take all mentality go back beyond the bushes and even the 94 R takeover of Congress. It goes back to Reagan and his admin’s subversion of law in Iran-Contra.
There is simply no respect for the other two branches of gov’t, shown by the White House in the last 3 decades.
Reagan first tried to subvert the Supreme Court w litmus tested candidates. Then he ignored Congress and broke the law w Iran-Contra. He refused to compromise on much spending and brought the country to a five tear economic debacle- 1987-92, with his wasteful spending, and tax cuts for the rich.
Bush 2 has only added to the Reagan legacy.
And CS, yes, you have a right to question a policy, but just as the rest of us have been dragged into a Right Wing abyss the last 8 years, so might you have to be dragged back to the center. That’s politics.
However, Hillary will win, and she’s a DINO- she’s a DLC Dem who supported the war, will find a weasel way to keep troops there, and will be no more progressive than BIll.
So, calm down- little will change.
Rudi – you’re right that I voted for him in 2004, which was a good year before I started to truly question what the Republican party had become, and a good three years before I began to think about the merits of divided government. 2008 will be the first election where my Presidential vote is truly up for grabs. Will I lean Republican, heavily? Yes, for the reasons outlined above. Does that guarantee my vote for a Republican? No. No longer. That most assuredly gives my colleagues at the Republican Leadership Council heartburn, but so be it. Until I’m confident the party has truly reformed and is consistently putting up the best person for the job, I’m a Republican-Oriented Independent … not a RINO, but a ROI.
Pete – Your saying the exact things as John Cole at BJ.
Rudi – anything in particular (a specific post) you could point me to by Mr. Cole?
I missed this as I was having a little tech trouble last week, but even though I’m late to the party, I thought I’d weigh in on some of the comments.
First, I was stunned to see I agree with half of Cosmo’s comments. I find this very disturbing. This is what I don’t agree with:
Not voting send no signal. It just makes you indistinguishable from the apathetic majority that do not vote. No signal is sent. No signal is received. YOu just disappear. You just don’t count. Full stop.
This is where Cosmo and I mostly agree: