As we head into the home stretch of Election 2008, there is a lot of talk about how big the probable Democratic victory is going to be. On many of the more liberal websites, people are almost drooling over the prospect of a major sweep. But, in this campaign, I think we need to consider too the impact of such a sweep.
One way to visualize what is going on is to look at New England, the six states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Since the founding of the Republican party in 1854, the region has sent at least one Republican to every single Congress. An unbroken record of 154 years of elections.
But, after this week, that could no longer be true. There is only one GOP House member left in New England (compared to twenty one Democrats). Incumbent Christopher Shays (R-CT) is in a tough race for re-election and may well lose to a Democrat. Activists are vowing to ‘turn New England blue’ by wiping out any opposition of any kind.
This kind of thinking is even being promoted on a national level by some of the more far-left blogs like Daily Kos where the webmaster promotes the idea of crushing the opposition. Again this is not simply the idea that you have your views, I have mine, and we both hope that we win. This is the idea that only one viewpoint should be allowed, only one political position is acceptable. This is not a healthy concept either from the point of view of good government or free speech.
Now I am sure that some of our more liberal readers are thinking ‘well what is wrong with the idea of winning’. In response I would suggest they consider how they would feel if a similar campaign were being waged to ‘turn <insert area here> red’. The idea of absolute one party rule is quite disturbing to me. I would think the people of New England would recognize this as many of their legislatures are very lopsided and have led to a lot of scandal and corruption over the years.
Another issue that voters have complained about recently is the rise in partisanship, the fact that people no longer work together across party lines. Well, this kind of ‘wipe out the other side’ is hardly going to help change these problems. Indeed, it was moderate Republicans from New England, California, the Northeast, etc that helped to make the GOP more moderate and bridge some of the gaps.
Similarly, it was moderate to conservative Democrats from the South and West that allowed their party to become more moderate and mainstream. As much as I do not want to see one party rule in Washington, I do at least hope that some of the new Democrats will be of this moderate stripe, rather than following the netroots and the activists.
Unfortunately the same people who talk about turning regions blue are also the ones who are talking about purging the Democratic party of anyone who is not a hard core liberal. Again, this is hardly helpful to the idea of bipartisanship and moderation in politics. Once you no longer have to worry about the other side, then you no longer have to respond to your critics. Just as the Christian right has caused problems for the GOP, so the netroots left may be doing for the Democrats.
If you look over history, things have seldom gone well when one party ran a region or a state or a country. When you have no Republican or Democratic representatives from a state or a region, then what interest do they have in reaching out?
So I hope that voters will push both parties to work for bipartisanship and moderation, not simply for the sake of the parties but for the sake of the nation.