Allow me to put the lie to one of the greatest TeeVee debates of the past 20 years: America is not divided "right down the middle". That's idiotic. AHH!! elections are closer than ever, the electorate is divided between tobacco-chewing hillbillies and the fancy-pants college educated intelligentsia! Never the twain shall meet! Hoarders, Preppers, Tweakers, Perverts, (whatever your thing is): the end is nigh for our democracy!
Bull. You wanna know what the real problem is? Lousy political parties. I know, you're saying "wait, what? I thought it was the natural devolution of a post-industrial society"? Well, you're wrong. Round up a couple of working brain cells, a couple fingers of scotch and follow along:
Here is the job of a political party: cultivate, nurture and support viable, qualified leadership for their community, state or nation.
That's it.
Now, it is a big job and, regardless of whether the parties understand it, when they're winning elections, this is what they're doing. And when they're doing that their communities are successful because they are united. Please note that this does not pre-judge the ideology of said candidate. It's whomever best fits the electorate. Green candidate, Tea party, centrist, whatever.
When the parties aren't performing this essential function is when things go wrong. Our recent electoral contest in Virginia is an example of both parties doing a crappy job on pretty much the entire ticket. A far left vs. far right candidate, neither of whom had the credentials to operate in the middle of their party let alone the larger electorate. Broken parties produce lousy candidates and lack the resources to support them. Properly run parties produce candidates that unify the party. The importance of that cannot be overstated because any political party or faction thereof requires 2 things to be viable:
1. Electoral victories
2. Legislative victories
You can have #1 and not #2 but it isn't worth a warm bowl of spit. You can't have either of those if you aren't doing job one. Yeah, you might find some exceptions – "wave" elections but many of those folks are wiped out in the next general. You have to have qualified candidates.
I know, I know: it's starting to dawn on you that I'm talking about "The Establishment". Yessss…the Establishment. Drink deep of that kool-aid. Everyone hates the establishment – it's full of money-men, n'er do wells and deviants but it turns out that unless you have someone to vet and support your candidates you get your ass kicked in the general election.
At this point, you might be asking: well what about the "Base" that the establishment loves to hate? Can't the "base" just turn out and carry the election? To which I reply: what's the name of our next governor? If you're going to run and win, you need the middle…even if just by a little!
The only corollary I would offer is that all of this is less true in the gerrymandered districts that most of our representatives enjoy. However, for those that run "at large" it is absolutely true.
November 20, 2013 at 11:29 am
Andy, not sure whether your comments apply to the local party, but I might point out that during the last election, the GOP did win the "Independent" vote that both parties seem to believe represents "the pure middle". I've never subscribed to this, as most of those "I's" I've encountered pretty much vote the same party each election, in accordance with their personal ideology. One omission from your analysis is that parties facilitate a process. They find and develop candidates, provide the process by which those candidates achieve the nomination, and then support those nominees to get them elected. Now one method of nomination may be favored by one faction of a party, over another, a real sign of the health of the overall party is whether or not the nominations are contested. How can you say you have "vetted" a candidate, when he or she gets the nomination through default or forefit?
November 21, 2013 at 6:27 am
I think you're right about most of that but we're going different directions towards the end of your comment. I agree that the parties facilitate the proces but the process is not the end game. A candidate that unifies the party (!) and wins elections should be our goal in all cases.
As for vetting, I don't consider trial by fire to be a vetting process in politics. In hand to hand combat, sure, but the final job of the people we are supporting is governance and leadership. If we are forced to pick between whoever the hell decides to show up and nobody is doing the finding and minding, we're in trouble.
November 21, 2013 at 10:40 am
Andy, I think you misunderstand the last points I was making; One of the many functions of a party (I'm speaking of the official organization, not the general R or D electorate), is to facilitate the process, by which nominees are vetted (ie. nominated). Whether this be by canvas or caucus, mass meeting or convention, party or state primary, the party serves a vital role in the electoral process. This is often overlooked when people make off-handed or ill-informed comments about "let's form a 3rd, 4th, 5th, party", or run as an Independent. The hurdles to form a 4th 5th or 6th party have been set pretty high by state law, and for good reason. It is to keep us from becoming a parlimentary system where pluralities hold more power than majorities, coalition governments are formed and disolved. By facilitating a nomination process (as laid out in the respective party plans, filed with the State), the only hurdle facing a prospective candidate (with regards to getting on the ballot) is to win their respective party's nomination. The R's and D's have demonstrated viability and functionablity, so the nominees of the party will receive automatic recognition by the Local, State, and Federal election authorities. Lesser parties that have failed to achieve a certain percentage of the vote in previous elections don't get the auto-recognition. They have to collect a certain number of signatures and petition the election authorities to be placed on the General Election ballot. Some states don't have this, which is why you can have joke candidates like "Vermin Supreme" appear on the ballot, simply by paying a nominal fee, and filling out a form. There is no "vetting", which brings me to my next point; What about the parties that don't hold contested nominations? Someone works backroom deals and sweeps potential rivals for the nomination away, prior to the nomination contest, and gains the nomination by default? Have they really been vetted? Nope. They are the party's standard bearer, even though the party (now I am referring to the general R or D convention or primary voter) hasn't been involved in the selection process. A healthy party has contested nominations for open seats, and the occasional primary challenge of incumbents, IMHO.
November 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Gov. Elect McCauliffe names Aubrey Lane as Transportation Secretary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-names-aubrey-layne-transportation-chief/2013/11/22/66d2baf0-5397-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html