In a recent mindless foray through some of my favorite blogs, I noticed commentary on the approaching gubernatorial election in Mississippi, in which votes will be cast for either “Republican incumbent and Bush crony” Haley Barbour, or his Democratic opponent John Eaves.
What’s interesting about this election is that it would seem to be a lose-lose situation for Democrats with regard to social issues– somewhat a return to the “lesser of two evils” ideology that plagued the Bush-Kerry presidential race — because Mr. Eaves’ support of prayer in public schools goes against the views of the Democratic base’s standpoint.
This issue illustrates the problem voters face in having to choose between the importance of a certain issue and the pressure to abide by the platform of their political party. Doubtless, many a liberal will be unsure whether it’s more important to vote for Mr. Eaves to keep the Democratic Party in power or to vote for a Republican whose social standpoint seems more agreeable.
While it’s certainly not uncommon for a candidate to stray from certain ideas or values generally attributed to his party, the fact that this creates such a trap for voters is something that warrants reconsideration. It seems that politics is becoming more about matching oneself to the brand of “Republican” or “Democrat” and less about focusing in on issues that matter to the people and even to the candidate himself. And this is the dilemma often posed by having only two major political parties: Pressure is placed on both the voters and the candidates to consolidate their views such that they fit with the candidates or the public, respectively. In situations like these, it is inevitable that certain ideals will have to be compromised or even ignored, since the focus is more on parties than on values. It is important to note that our two-party system makes it all too easy to vote for a label rather than a belief.
A very important issue stemming from this label-driven politics is the intense polarization of candidates; it has become increasingly difficult for moderate candidates to retain voters because, rather than appearing as a compromise of both sides’ values, moderates seem only to anger voters on both extremes because their approaches are not definative enough with regard to certain issues — something we’re used to calling “flip-flopping.”
Rudy Giuliani is losing Republican support because of his views on gay rights and women’s rights, and Mitt Romney has gone out of his way to make amends for — God forbid — the fact that he ever could have possibly considered a pro-choice stance. The falling support for Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani, along with the Barbour-Eaves example just goes to show how much we, as a nation, are ignoring this diversity in our robotic focus on certain trigger issues without really looking at the grey area that lies between two extreme viewpoints.
It seems that there’s not really room for the “socially liberal, but fiscally conservative” voter or the “pro-choice, but not pro-abortion” stance because we’re being pushed to lump ourselves into a category, to put ourselves into a neat little box that will help us think less and feel like we know more. It is this very problem that’s making the search for positive political leaders so difficult. We’ve become so used to categorizing certain issues by party affiliation. Without a veil of the “Democratic view” or “Republican view,” it takes more than a little bit of effort to separate a position from its party backers because we’ve become so divided that everything must be grouped into its neat partisan category, all separated out and ready to attack the evil “other side.”
The point is not that we need more parties, but that we need to account for diversity of views with regard to both Republicans and Democrats. Candidates should make an effort to bring each side closer to the center in an effort to compromise rather than attack the other side’s antics and thus only create more division. Case in point: demoting state Sen. Judy Robson from her post as Senate majority leader because she dropped Healthy Wisconsin, a Democratic proposal that had little chance of passing, in favor of compromise on the overall budget. This demotion was ill-advised and only furthers divisive politics in Wisconsin.
As the saying goes, “The answer always lies somewhere in the middle,” and in the midst of flip-flopping and shape-shifting politics, we should try to step closer to the middle — rather than the edges — in an attempt to reach our political goals.
Hannah Shtein ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in philosophy and religious studies.
