"Are You Now...
“…or have you ever been a member of…”
That’s how the famous question posed by Eugene McCarthy starts. He was ferreting out Communists in the early Fifties.
Our current national obsession with all things primary got me to thinking. I don’t know, and I don’t think I’ve ever known, a single actual member of the Democratic or Republican parties (beyond a few actual candidates that I’ve met). I’ve voted for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents. Most of my friends skew to the Republican side of things, but they aren’t Republicans. Many of you who read me skew to the Democratic side; but, are you actually members of the Democratic Party?
Here in Georgia you just register to vote, you don’t declare a party membership; though, in the primaries, you do have to make a choice as to which primary you want to vote in. In other states that make you declare a party when you register, are the voters really members of their declared party? I’m thinking they aren’t, for the most part, though a twenty minute Google search isn’t giving me any hard numbers.
So what’s my point? We, the practically independent electorate of the United States, get what they, the Dems and the GOP, give us. Two relatively small groups of people control the process that produces our state and federal governments. And that process leads to division as the candidates “play to their base.”
At a local level, people actually participate in government. Town councils, county commissions, school boards. In most places, the candidates, while nominally party members, are elected or defeated, based on their performance, or promise of performance. “Sue’s done a good job.” But to reach that next step, Sue has to declare and hew to the party line. If she just has good ideas and a strong work ethic, she’ll go nowhere at a state or federal level. She has to put time and effort into pleasing one of the two groups, time and effort that has no productive result.
I don’t have a solution to what I’ve laid out as a problem. The days of the town meeting are gone. Our leaders aren’t really accountable to us. They spend their time insuring their position in their party so as to be their party’s choice in the next election cycle. Then they mouth the platitudes they’ve calculated will trigger our votes, and start the process over again.
14 comments:
The commie hunter was Joe McCarthy. Eugene McCarthy was the anti war senator who got Lyndon Johnson to retire in 1968.
As for the bulk of your post, party divisions are mostly irrelevant. The two words I would like to see permanently retired are Liberal and Conservative.
chamblee54
Thanks for the correction Chamblee.
In Florida you must register as an Independent, No Party or one of a whole shew of different parties including Rep and Dem. We have closed primaries unless there is no one running from another party (this is something new in the last few elections - before if you were not in the ruling party you had not say). In my area most voters are registered Rep but many are really Dem and register as Rep so they can vote in the primaries as the Rep's control most of the local offices. If you don't do this, you have no say in who your elected officials are. A great many of the elected officials are liberal but run as Rep because they know they have a better chance of being elected this way. How does this affect government? Actually, it works pretty well. We seem to have a nice balance between conservative and liberal. I do not vote along party lines. I look for the candidate who seems to have the most common sense. Having worked in the party structure for many years I know most of our leaders - some are good and some are bad. I could give you a whole lot more on party politics but it really is boreing.
I've never been a member of a political party. I don't see what advantage it would bring - I'd still just vote for whoever I think is best for an office, and not by party line. I've never seen a party platform that I agreed with more than about half of anyway. They all seem to have a mix of good, bad, and outrageous.
My husband shares your frustration with the two party system and the crappy choices that system usually gives us for elected officials. He usually votes for a third-party alternative because he is not impressed with the D or R person.
Let me add to my response. As I have said before, I think everyone should vote. If you don't vote, you can't complain and I love to complain. But - you should not vote just for the sake of voting. Do not pick soneone because you like the way they look or their name is cute. Or because they represent a particular political party - people who vote straight party lines are not responsible voters. It is not difficult to become and informed voter - most candidates have websites. Your elected officials will be making decisions, big and small that will effect you lives - find out what the candidate stands for and see if his or her values match yours.
Furthering the comment above - Don't vote to "Make history!" Not that any of the choices are great this election season, but it bothers me greatly to hear people say that they are voting to make history. We are not voting to elect the first of this or that - we are voting on a person to lead the country.
I worked with the Irish government at one point. They have a very different system in that everyone votes and each vote counts.
...are you actually members of the Democratic Party?
Yep. I like to vote in the primaries and most states I've lived in require affiliation in order exercise that privilege.
I wonder if we should consider it an oversight that they founders didn't address the lack of democracy in the choosing of candidates.
A couple of points relating to the post and comments.
1) no one belongs to the 'democratic' party. It is the democrat party.
2) crappy choices are a function of little incentive for good folks to enter politics/public service. Not the two party system.
Anon, you're wrong on the name of the party that isn't the Republicans. This issue was, and is, raised by a local talk show host, Neal Boortz, who continually refers to the "Democrat" party. So, I looked it up. The legal name of the organization is "The Democratic Party."
Regarding your second point, lack of incentive, or more properly, the number of disincentives, probably do contribute to good people staying out of politics.
As a member of the Republic party i was confused about the naming convention. I apologize
To combine a response to Kvatch and Anon, we aren't a democracy, we're a republic, hence the schizophrenia in our public life.
In the United States, there is no such thing as being an official member of a political party. There are no dues. If you say you're a Republican or a Democrat, then that's what you are. In many places, especially rural areas, the party leadership is simply who shows up for the meetings and shows an interest in taking a lead role.
As far as the primaries are concerned, it varies from state to state. Tennessee is an open primary state; on primary day, you just walk up to the registration table and ask for a Democratic or a Republican ballot. Illinois, on the other hand, requires a formal party registration in order to vote in a primary.
Political parties today serve two basic purposes: fundraising and keeping out fringe elements. The political parties provide the centrifugical force that pulls the process back towards the center whenever it is in danger of leaning too far to the left or right.
The term "Democrat Party" is a slur originally coined in the 30's by GOP opponents of Franklin Roosevelt who felt the New Deal was in no way "democratic". Joe McCarthy kept it alive through the 50's, and Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing gasbags popularized the term among the wingnut fringe in recent years.
Doc, got to disagree on two points.
First, there are "official members" of political parties. Try this Gop site:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2050549_join-republican-party.html
You don't have to be a member to vote of course; but, those that are, control the process.
Second, I really don't see the parties as pulling the process towards the middle. I see exactly the opposite.
I might have to give you #1, although I'm not sure if the GOP sending me a neat little membership card in return for my check really means anything, given the various state election laws.
As for #2, there just isn't that broad an ideological gap between the two parties, and part of thet is definitely due to the parties' role in keeping the riff-raff out. Sure, the Republicans and Democrats have arguments every day, but those arguments are over how things should be done, not what is to be done. On the two meta-issues, that the American economy must expand in perpetuity and that America must maintain its military dominance over the planet, the major parties are in virtual 100% agreement. On economic issues, everybody is in agreement that some regulation is necessary; virtually no one argues for either a state-run economy or for complete deregulation. The arguments are over how much regulation is necessary. On foreign policy, the fault line isn't between liberals and conservatives, it's between globalists and nationalists, and both those camps contain liberals and conservatives.
Most of the bickering comes because over the last decade, the GOP has achieved an unprecedented level of party discipline. The Democrats were caught off-guard by this because when they were dominating Congress, they regularly reached across the aisle for legislative support. It can be said that the Republicans are more conservative than they were 20 years ago, but this has had the effect of pulling the Democrats toward the center to fill the perceived vacuum. Barack Obama's strategy is largely based upon appealing to disaffected moderate Republicans. The same thing happened in the 70's, when Democrats were acused of being too liberal. Ronald Reagan would not have become President without the votes of blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" who were conservative on social issues but generally motre liberal on economic issues.
Post a Comment