Ideology vs. Outcomes

In a column about the difficulties the Republicans find themselves in, Mike Rosen asserts:

Two-thirds of voters may reliably support either Republican or Democratic candidates, but the other third goes either way. Most of them have no loyalty to parties, coalitions or philosophies. They just want nice outcomes and they want them now! And it's they who decide elections. When the party in power can't deliver, they try the other party.

To make sure we fully understand what regard he holds these members of the electorate, Rosen later refers to them as “discontented, gullible swing voters.”

But I have to ask, what’s so wrong with caring more about outcomes than ideology? Most Americans just want a functioning government that manages the economy well, that provides reliable services and that keeps us safe. Does it really matter if those ends are achieved through big government liberalism or small government conservativism? To a lot of people, it doesn’t.

Ideologues believe their way is the only acceptable way. If they fail, it’s a matter of internal corruption (we’re not conservative/liberal enough!) or external perfidy (the conservatives/liberals are deceiving the voters!). Somehow this is supposed to be a wiser approach than simply voting for whoever has the idea that seems most likely to work right now.

There’s room for ideology in politics. In fact, it’s essential to the development of grand ideas. However, there’s just as much room for (and legitimacy to) voting based on which candidate or party will most competently manage the government. Sneering at swing-voters for not “getting it” is just puerile. If that’s the best conservatives like Rosen can do then they are headed for quite the defeat.

RIP Unity '08

Just received an email from Unity '08. They are ceasing their efforts to get a bi-partisan ticket on the ballots of all 50 states. They site a lack of money and members as the problem.

They also just lost two board members who've apparently gone to work with Michael Bloomberg. The email is long and I won't bore you with a long quote, but after kinda-sorta taking credit for Barack Obama, they had this to say:

The past year has taught us that it's tough to rally millions for a process without a candidate or an issue...Motivating people to fix a broken system that drives candidates to the extremes by creating something more inclusive and sensible has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.

Yeah, coulda told them that. I've been involved in a similar, albeit much smaller effort. We couldn't get about eight self-proclaimed centrists to agree on much of anything. Unity '08 was trying to rally a whole nation.

Hey, centrism, moderation, independent-mindedness (whatever you want to call it) is not dead. It's just not possible to organize in any large or meaningful way. That's what makes those of us non-partisans so important to the process. We're unpredictable. You can't win the independents with the same song-and-dance in each election. You gotta keep evolving.

Unity '08 says they're evolving too. But, really, it's over for them. But it may just be beginning independents.

An Independent State of Mind

Independents in New Hampshire are lining up for McCain and Obama. McCain’s independent credentials are well established. But Obama? Outside the unification, post-partisan rhetoric, is he really an independent who is breaking free from the usual political categories?

A trip to the Obama website is the kind of in-depth-to-the-point-of-tedium experience you expect from any wonky Democratic website. There are plans upon plans upon plans. The Democrats, even with all their sub-species, are essentially the party that believes in the efficacy of national government. There isn’t a problem in the world that can’t be solved through federal power, and Obama’s policies do not deviate from that predilection.

Of course, a tendency towards statism does not mean Obama isn’t an independent at heart. After all, without evidence that he is deceiving us, we must assume the senator is sincere in his desire to bridge the political divides. Still, the vast majority of his policies are tried-and-true Democratic initiatives:

Reversing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy • Quickly withdrawing all combat forces from Iraq (he supported getting us out by March 2008) • Fixing Social Security by removing the cap on taxable earnings • Curtailing CAFTA and NAFTA • Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation • Instituting a Fair Pay Act to ensure equal pay for women • Banning racial profiling • Providing affordable childcare to working families • Capping carbon emissions and investing LOTS of money and effort in developing clean energy

I could go on and on. Without judging the individual merit of these positions, I think we can agree they are hardly independent of politics as usual.

So why the enthusiasm among independents? Outside the soaring rhetoric, is Obama offering any significant changes not found in the platforms of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards? Well … yeah.

All the candidates talk about reforming government, but Obama’s website is the most passionate and most specific about changing the way government works. He has numerous governmental transparency initiatives which would illuminate the flow of money through our system. He wants political contributions documented and shared. He wants citizens to be able to see where federal dollars end up and who directed them there. Simply put, he wants accountability through transparency and he would use Internet technology to ensure anyone and everyone can see the money flow.

If you can categorize “independents” at all (a tricky task to be sure), you’d probably give them two qualifications. 1) a preference for new ideas that come from outside the usual party politics; and 2) a desire to reform politics and government as usual. Obama really doesn’t appeal to the first but he’s right in line on the second. Add to that his stated commitment to reinstating PAYGO, and I can see why independents are responding to his message.

It’s not that Obama is overflowing with new ideas, it’s that he’s promising responsibility at a level not offered or at least not accentuated by any other Democrat. In effect, he's saying: we’re going to do this the right way rather than continuing the closed-doors, backroom handshake system. After eight years of Bush’s hyper-secrecy and the previous eight years of Clinton’s equivocations, the promise of a new era of government disclosure and responsibility is truly alluring.

Obama may not be a policy independent, but he has an independent spirit, a will and a want to reform. In the end, his mainline Democratic platform may lose him independent support. But, for now, Obama’s message is one independents can get behind.

Run Bloomberg, Run

I love the idea of a Michael Bloomberg run for president — not because I’m dying to vote for him (I don’t know enough to make that kind of judgment) but because the very thought of such a candidacy is already ruffling feathers on both sides. Hyper-loyal Democrat Paul Krugman poo poos the idea and Republican propagandist Scott Johnson is equally as dismissive.

You see, nothing irritates a partisan quite like knocking over and rearranging his carefully stacked and sorted opinions. Independents, by nature, don’t sign on to pre-approved platforms and tend to see those who do as, well, lacking the good sense God gave them. What really disturbs the partisans is the fact that they really don’t know how many independents they have in their own party. A lot of people with party affiliations, even loyal ones, are independent of mind and thus subject to change that mind. If enough change, those carefully arranged platforms will get scattered, making a huge mess for the parties and their true-blue (or red) believers.

Dismissing Bloomberg as a egotist or out-of-touch billionaire provides the partisan mind a sense of comfort. But if Bloomberg marches on, expect more fearsome attacks. This isn’t a Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan whose candidacies clearly stole from one party over the other. This is a guy who could steal from all sides and neither party wants to be the one who loses the most voters.

Just watching the parties have to compensate for Bloomberg would make the mayor’s presidential run worthwhile. Political parties are at their best when they stay dynamic. A strong independent candidate could force both parties to do just that.