Home Page > Editorial and Op-Ed
No One to Blame But Themselves by KT McFarland
Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:30:00
By K.T. McFarland
When more than 75 percent of people agree on something in this country, we had better pay attention. Three-quarters of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. Less than 20 percent think Congress is doing a good job, and only slightly more approve of the president. Numbers like that don’t just point to a new political movement. They’re the makings of a revolution.
Most of us understand there’s something happening there, but we’re not sure why it’s happening or what to do about it. But we don’t like it. Some of it is due to politicians who care more about perpetuating their positions than they do about promoting the common good. These guys may have been originally drawn to politics because they cared passionately about something, but the longer they’re in office the only thing they seem to care passionately about is getting reelected. It’s as if the means and the ends have switched places.
What does this mean for the rest of us? We’ve become an electorate that is cynical and disaffected, and consistently ranks politicians as their least admired profession.
Modern technology is also to blame. Campaign consultants brag that voters no longer get to choose their elected officials, but elected officials do get to choose their voters. Sophisticated polling,computer-assisted data gathering and brazen gerrymandering make it possible for state legislatures to draw weirdly shaped, lopsided electoral districts which incumbents of both parties have a vested interest in maintaining. It is commonplace to have districts with 70 percent Republican/30 percent Democrat voter registration sitting right next to districts with 70 percent Democratic/30 percent Republican registration.
The real contest in those districts is the primaries, where the more committed and usually more extreme party loyalists prevail. That way neither party has to spend money on competitive elections, incumbents get reelected, and the only time seats are hotly contested is when the incumbent retires, dies or gets indicted.
Because of all the money sloshing around politics today, campaigns have big piggy banks to work with. One of the phenomena of modern elections is that fewer and fewer people actually show up at the polls and vote. Modern day strategists exploit that by giving “voter turnout” a new twist. In the old days, candidates focused on forming coalitions, bringing in special interest voters one group at a time so that the guy who got the most votes won. We wanted people to vote.
Nowadays, a candidate wins by energizing and whipping up his most ardent supporters to turn out in high percentages, while at the same time assassinating his opponent’s character—with attack ads, push polling and name calling—in order to so disgust his supporters that they stay home on Election Day. It may be expensive, but it is effective. Tragically, it flies in the face of what democracy is supposed to be all about and skates dangerously close to suppressing the vote. It’s unethical, but it’s legal. And it contributes more than anything to the downward spiral of public life. Good people don’t want to run for office. Good citizens are turned off by elections. Good voters stay home on Election Day.
The result of all this? Gridlock in Washington (and in Albany); Common acceptance that the political system is broken; and universal agreement that though we face unprecedented problems—with terrorism, unchecked immigration, an aging infrastructure, runaway government spending, health care, ballooning deficits, a looming recession—neither party is willing to meet on common middle ground in order to solve them.
The centers of gravity of the two political parties are moving further out to the extremes, while most people remain in the center of the spectrum. Every year, fewer and fewer voters identify with either political party. In many states, more new voters—especially young voters—are registering as unaffiliated independents than as Republicans or Democrats. Unless one or both parties find their way back to the center of the political spectrum, the possibility of a successful third-party candidate for president becomes very, very real. And should that independent, centrist, third-party candidate win or even come close to it, I predict a stampede to the center, which could well trample the Republican and Democratic parties in the process. That sounds like a revolution to me.
When more than 75 percent of people agree on something in this country, we had better pay attention. Three-quarters of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. Less than 20 percent think Congress is doing a good job, and only slightly more approve of the president. Numbers like that don’t just point to a new political movement. They’re the makings of a revolution.
Most of us understand there’s something happening there, but we’re not sure why it’s happening or what to do about it. But we don’t like it. Some of it is due to politicians who care more about perpetuating their positions than they do about promoting the common good. These guys may have been originally drawn to politics because they cared passionately about something, but the longer they’re in office the only thing they seem to care passionately about is getting reelected. It’s as if the means and the ends have switched places.
What does this mean for the rest of us? We’ve become an electorate that is cynical and disaffected, and consistently ranks politicians as their least admired profession.
Modern technology is also to blame. Campaign consultants brag that voters no longer get to choose their elected officials, but elected officials do get to choose their voters. Sophisticated polling,computer-assisted data gathering and brazen gerrymandering make it possible for state legislatures to draw weirdly shaped, lopsided electoral districts which incumbents of both parties have a vested interest in maintaining. It is commonplace to have districts with 70 percent Republican/30 percent Democrat voter registration sitting right next to districts with 70 percent Democratic/30 percent Republican registration.
The real contest in those districts is the primaries, where the more committed and usually more extreme party loyalists prevail. That way neither party has to spend money on competitive elections, incumbents get reelected, and the only time seats are hotly contested is when the incumbent retires, dies or gets indicted.
Because of all the money sloshing around politics today, campaigns have big piggy banks to work with. One of the phenomena of modern elections is that fewer and fewer people actually show up at the polls and vote. Modern day strategists exploit that by giving “voter turnout” a new twist. In the old days, candidates focused on forming coalitions, bringing in special interest voters one group at a time so that the guy who got the most votes won. We wanted people to vote.
Nowadays, a candidate wins by energizing and whipping up his most ardent supporters to turn out in high percentages, while at the same time assassinating his opponent’s character—with attack ads, push polling and name calling—in order to so disgust his supporters that they stay home on Election Day. It may be expensive, but it is effective. Tragically, it flies in the face of what democracy is supposed to be all about and skates dangerously close to suppressing the vote. It’s unethical, but it’s legal. And it contributes more than anything to the downward spiral of public life. Good people don’t want to run for office. Good citizens are turned off by elections. Good voters stay home on Election Day.
The result of all this? Gridlock in Washington (and in Albany); Common acceptance that the political system is broken; and universal agreement that though we face unprecedented problems—with terrorism, unchecked immigration, an aging infrastructure, runaway government spending, health care, ballooning deficits, a looming recession—neither party is willing to meet on common middle ground in order to solve them.
The centers of gravity of the two political parties are moving further out to the extremes, while most people remain in the center of the spectrum. Every year, fewer and fewer voters identify with either political party. In many states, more new voters—especially young voters—are registering as unaffiliated independents than as Republicans or Democrats. Unless one or both parties find their way back to the center of the political spectrum, the possibility of a successful third-party candidate for president becomes very, very real. And should that independent, centrist, third-party candidate win or even come close to it, I predict a stampede to the center, which could well trample the Republican and Democratic parties in the process. That sounds like a revolution to me.
