Elections DO Have Consequences

I'm having a bout of low-level concern about the health of our Republic. No, not because of the economic crisis; we'll deal with that. My angst springs from a simple, stark realization: that our President (and the last one, and the one before that....) was largely selected by a group of people who do not have a clue about politics or government, and who vote based on emotional factors not in any way connected to objective quality evidence.

Democrats overwhelmingly voted for President Obama, and it is as it should be. People who identify with the Democratic Party have a bundle of political beliefs that were more closely aligned with what Candidate Obama was saying than what Candidate McCain was saying. Republicans voted primarily for McCain (though far more crossed over to Obama than the other way around). This is as it should be. Republicans have a bundle of political beliefs that were more closely aligned with what Candidate McCain was saying.

These people do not concern me. If you have a party identification, you have at least gone through a step or two of basic citizenship and civics to arrive at a nascent political philosophy that arms you when you step into the ballot box.

The people who concern me are those who do not have party affiliations. Not all of them mind you, just a certain subset. That subset consists of those people (and we all know them) who disavow the modern political parties, who claim that the parties are "...(all) alike..." and that "...there's no difference...". "I vote for the person, not for the party" is another of the favorite lines of these mooring-less lemmings, swayed by an easy smile, a clever phrase, or a homespun accent. My friends, these are the people who elect our Presidents (and every other office, for that matter). They elect our Presidents because it is to these voters that our national candidates largely appeal, as the support of their base is, if not assumed, at least less ardently courted.

But elections DO have consequences; long-lasting, important, tectonic consequences. Were it not for George Bush's two victories, we would not have two young-ish conservative men sitting on the Supreme Court for decades to come--stemming the tide against judicial activism and legislation from the bench. Does anyone really think a Republican President (or a Republican Congress for that matter) would have come up with the monstrosity of a bill that is now sure to pass Congress to "stimulate" our Democratic Party--whoops---I mean our economy? I can already hear my persistent Democratic friends; "no Bryan, Republicans wouldn't have passed it--they only led us into the mess we're in". A fair charge, to a point, except when one realizes that where we are is largely a result of Democratic policy and legislative changes designed to ensure that their constituents were able to "own a home" and "participate in the American dream". Strong arming the mortgage industry into making bad loans by hinting that their policies are racist was not a Republican agenda item.

When George Bush acted in a crisis and pushed forward a $700B emergency measure---it was designed to save a financial industry that was teetering on the edge of disaster. Half of that money was applied and many financial industry observers indicate that it has stabilized things. I imagine the other half of that money--if wisely used by Secretary Geithner--will do the same. It was not a bill larded with candy designed to payoff Republican supporters...hell, the financial industry titans are at least as likely to vote Democrat as they are Republican, if you track their political contributions.

In his first at bat, President Obama acted like the Chicago machine pol that he is, putting forward a bill that should in fact, stimulate the economy, but only partially, as 35-40% of the bill is simple political payoff to his friends in the labor unions, the teachers unions, the environmental lobby and the community activist crowd. Under the banner of "emergency" legislation, all manner of Democratic policy goals will be advanced and the country will continue its slow trip down the Road to Serfdom.

The parties are no different? Nonsense. They are fundamentally different, they view the role of government differently, they view the virtue of the electorate differently and they view role of the courts differently. To my Democratic friends who disagree with me on the issues I say bully for you--I disagree with your political philosophy but at least you have one. To the voters who have no political philosophy but who vote anyway for the man or woman who makes them feel better about themselves, or who has a flashier smile, or who had a more interesting childhood, I say please stay home the next time we vote for a President.