The Danger of Independents
Today, I voted in a closed party primary for the first time in my life. A lot of people didn't, I'm sure, because they aren't registered with a party. That's a dangerous course to take.
In high school, being an independent was presented, as I recall, as a way of thinking for yourself--not letting the political parties make your selections for you. To a teenager, this sounded pretty good. What self-resepecting teenager wants anyone (except some other teenager) to do his thinking for him? And how sophisticated does it sound to say something like "I vote for the person, not the party"?
What makes that dangerous is that it's possible to stick with that sophomoric position for years and years and never really become familiar with or think about the philosophies of the two major parties. One might never see that there's a disconnect between a party's claims that it believes in the individual and its actions to limit the freedom of some individuals in significant ways. One might never recognize that there's a problem with promising increased aid for education and transportation and also pledging to reduce taxes. Without knowing something of party philosophy and history, a person has little to go on beyond the last couple of elections. The frustration that arises from this leads many people to say "All of the candidates are lying all the time anyway." Actually, a good many of them don't lie at all--not about their positions on hot-button issues. Some of them don't understand that their actions undermine their words.
Even greater danger arises from Independents who put only a little research into candidates. For example, there was a candidate near me--we'll skip the party affiliation--whose position on education was that he thought temporary classrooms were bad and he was going to get rid of them, and he wanted to ask Verizon to donate Internet capable cell phones and airtime to Hispanic students as a means of closing the achievement gap. Hell, nobody likes temporary classrooms. Nobody knows how to get rid of them either without building schools for which we may not have the land and building them much too big for needs of the foreseeable future. And what's this guy going to do when Verizon executives laugh at him, or when the students do get the cell phones and start using them to surf the Web in class--without the restrictions imposed on school networks?
Finally, there's a danger that people really will vote for the person. Until he started ranting all the time during the summer, Bush actually seemed like an affable, friendly guy. He might have been a bit too much of a back-slapper for me, but he didn't seem unpleasant until he started screaming and making swatting motions at his audiences. George Allen? I'm told he's a very friendly guy. Bob Ehrlich? He comes across as a rush chairman--terminally gregarious. But does this make them the right people for high public office? People say Warren Harding, one of the worst, was one of the friendliest presidents. Washington, almost always ranked in the top five greatest presidents, is said to have been aloof except among close friends.
So there's no virtue in claiming to be independent. It might mean that you don't let the parties do your thinking for you, but it might also mean that you don't think. And saying you vote for the man is great if you're voting for a rush chairman or social chairman, but after you leave the frat house or sorority house, you need to look for something a bit stronger.
In high school, being an independent was presented, as I recall, as a way of thinking for yourself--not letting the political parties make your selections for you. To a teenager, this sounded pretty good. What self-resepecting teenager wants anyone (except some other teenager) to do his thinking for him? And how sophisticated does it sound to say something like "I vote for the person, not the party"?
What makes that dangerous is that it's possible to stick with that sophomoric position for years and years and never really become familiar with or think about the philosophies of the two major parties. One might never see that there's a disconnect between a party's claims that it believes in the individual and its actions to limit the freedom of some individuals in significant ways. One might never recognize that there's a problem with promising increased aid for education and transportation and also pledging to reduce taxes. Without knowing something of party philosophy and history, a person has little to go on beyond the last couple of elections. The frustration that arises from this leads many people to say "All of the candidates are lying all the time anyway." Actually, a good many of them don't lie at all--not about their positions on hot-button issues. Some of them don't understand that their actions undermine their words.
Even greater danger arises from Independents who put only a little research into candidates. For example, there was a candidate near me--we'll skip the party affiliation--whose position on education was that he thought temporary classrooms were bad and he was going to get rid of them, and he wanted to ask Verizon to donate Internet capable cell phones and airtime to Hispanic students as a means of closing the achievement gap. Hell, nobody likes temporary classrooms. Nobody knows how to get rid of them either without building schools for which we may not have the land and building them much too big for needs of the foreseeable future. And what's this guy going to do when Verizon executives laugh at him, or when the students do get the cell phones and start using them to surf the Web in class--without the restrictions imposed on school networks?
Finally, there's a danger that people really will vote for the person. Until he started ranting all the time during the summer, Bush actually seemed like an affable, friendly guy. He might have been a bit too much of a back-slapper for me, but he didn't seem unpleasant until he started screaming and making swatting motions at his audiences. George Allen? I'm told he's a very friendly guy. Bob Ehrlich? He comes across as a rush chairman--terminally gregarious. But does this make them the right people for high public office? People say Warren Harding, one of the worst, was one of the friendliest presidents. Washington, almost always ranked in the top five greatest presidents, is said to have been aloof except among close friends.
So there's no virtue in claiming to be independent. It might mean that you don't let the parties do your thinking for you, but it might also mean that you don't think. And saying you vote for the man is great if you're voting for a rush chairman or social chairman, but after you leave the frat house or sorority house, you need to look for something a bit stronger.
posted by amsterdr at 6:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home