It’s an interesting time to be involved in politics in Massachusetts.
Two men with roots to my hometown of Wakefield – and strong and loyal support – are candidates for seats in the U.S. House and Senate. One could tip the balance of party control in the U.S. Senate.
Meantime our former Governor is vying for the most powerful public office in the land. His national campaign headquarters is in Boston.
All three candidates – Richard Tisei, Scott Brown, and Mitt Romney – have established reputations as thoughtful moderates, willing to cross party lines to accomplish legislative goals. Tisei and Brown are eminently likable fellows – the type I’d probably seek out at a family cookout or cocktail party as the kind of guy I could talk to about the Patriots, Springsteen, or the joys of home ownership.
So many of my Wakefield friends seem puzzled when they ask me: Why don’t you support any of them?
My answer is simple: They are Republicans, and I am a Democrat.
I realize it’s not particularly popular to say that these days, our Commonwealth’s reputation as the bluest of states notwithstanding.
The fact is party politics is a dying craft. Fewer and fewer Americans identify as Democrat or Republican. Younger generations are far more likely to register as unenrolled than mine, just as my generation is more independent than that of my father’s. No wonder. As a friend reminded me recently, partisanship has become synonymous with gridlock.
But parties are a fact of political life, whether we like them or not. The great American historian Gary Wills put it well in a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, when he chastised a liberal friend for abandoning support for the President:
“Obama was never a prince. None of them are,” he wrote. “The mistake behind all this is a misguided high-mindedness that boasts, ‘I vote for the man, not the party.’ This momentarily lifts the hot-air balloon of self-esteem by divorcing the speaker from political taintedness and compromise. But the man being voted for, no matter what he says, dances with the party that brought him, dependent on its support, resources, and clientele. That is why one should always vote on the party, instead of the candidate. The party has some continuity of commitment, no matter how compromised. What you are really voting for is the party’s constituency.”
This, I believe, is the hard truth behind all democratic elections. It’s a tough one for those of us who value our independence to swallow.
Parties are vehicles for putting ideas into action. And ideas that drive public policy matter a great deal to millions of people at the margins of society – the poor, the sick, the unemployed. They matter to our soldiers and our veterans, to women, to our seniors, and to our schoolchildren.
And I believe that for every one of those groups, Democratic ideas are better than Republican ones. By contrast, when I read the GOP platform, I don’t see myself, my community, or my values reflected there.
So might the election of a Richard Tisei, Scott Brown, or Mitt Romney temper the current Republican extremism and move the GOP back to the center? Sure.
But I’m not taking that chance.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Member, Wakefield
Democratic Town Committee
I don’t think its necessarily good to be a blind apparatchik for a party, but this year in particular the values that we all hold dear-the same values the Republicans I respect used to hold, are under direct and constant attack from a radical right wing, mobilized against a President it can’t even respect as a fellow American let alone as its commander in chief.
If Tisei endorsed Simpsons-Bowls and condemned Ryancare, if he promised not to vote for Speaker Boehner as punishment for his divisive policies, particularly over the debt ceiling, if he said ‘as a gay American I CANNOT accept my party’s platform as my own’, than I’d be genuinely impressed and ready to vote for him. As it is I am impressed by his record of service and his maintaining his ties to his community, two things Tierney has clearly forgotten. But since Tisei has not done those things its safe to assume that while he will be given the occasional pass on social issues he will be voting for those terrible budgets and the hostage taking atmosphere led by Cantor and Boehner.
Economist Brad DeLong was at a discussion of Mann & Orenstein’s new book and formulated this question, which I think crystallizes why we end up having to be so partisan.
Thanks for posting.
… of my feelings for quite a while now. Excellent quote.
which you might also like:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/05/six-questions-i-asked-thomas-mann-and-norman-ornstein-about-their-book-its-even-worse-than-it-looks-on-may-18-2012.html?cid=6a00e551f080038834016305cff15d970d
I read De Long pretty regularly now — though sometimes the economics on his blog are way over my head.
I’m simply baffled by the idea that you’d send someone to the US Senate — or White House — to make life and death decisions affecting millions of people based on, oh, you’d rather have a beer with him or he drives a truck. If your kid needed heart surgery, is that how you’d pick a surgeon?
Here’s how I understand it, though: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2012/08/taking-on-mr-nice-a-suggestion-for-the-elizabeth-warren-campaign/#comment-299797
I see a difference between people who don’t have time/energy/exceptional interest in following lots of issues details, and people who believe Scott Brown is a good senator because he drives a truck and so is ‘one of us.’
It’s one thing to buy the bipartisan claim because you don’t know all the details of things he’s actually voted for and against. That’s frustrating to me but at least someone is looking at something relevant to the job. But driving a truck???
I think the truck is supposed to be a non-elite status symbol, and it’s supposed to help guys identify with him. The truck’s part of the message; it isn’t the message.
Yes, you’re probably correct, but I just don’t get that either. I realize I’m not the target demographic for those ads, but I personally know and like a lot of regular guys who drive trucks who are also fine husbands and fathers but who aren’t qualified for the United States Senate. Not because they’re bad people but because they don’t have the knowledge and skills for the job. I wouldn’t have them operate on me any more than I want them deciding foreign policy or economic issues or what to do with my family and friends currently serving in the military.
Personality does matter – can you communicate well, persuade people, get things done? And without question you need to understand issues that regular people face. But that’s not the same thing as ‘want to invite to my barbecue’ or ‘not too smart’.
Why is elite athlete a good thing, elite Navy SEAL a good thing but elite intellect bad? Why do Republicans celebrate rich and successful in business but denigrate smart? I like the idea of someone smarter than me – and, frankly, I consider myself pretty bright – representing my interests and making those decisions. Yet as far as I could tell, in 2010 the truck pretty much was the message.
Budding politicos like me raised on the West Wing wish the people with the better principles and policies won every day, but in real life Ritchie might’ve beaten Barlett precisely because Bush beat Gore. At the end of the day the candidate people liked better was allowed to run the country in spite of a miserable economic and foreign policy record. I agree with Bubba that this President actually has a good economic record and we need to give him time, but based on his four years he should be toast. Instead since the Democrat is more likable for a change we might not only win we might keep most of the swing states from four years ago*. Likability matters and when your numbers hit a ceiling (EWs) its time to lower your opponents numbers to his floor.
*I never forget I am a Democrat so by no means do I view this election as a foregone conclusion, Gore and Kerry looked good too
I’ve often been frustrated by progressives who vote in primaries solely based on a list of positions as opposed to who would be most effective. There’s way more to the job of legislating than how you vote, although how you vote is obviously important. Given a group of candidates with largely similar values, look at things like communications skills, leadership abilities, effectiveness, and yes likability. Look at the core values first – which is why I can’t vote Republican now even though I have occasionally in the past – and not first who’s a regular guy.
I agree that Obama will benefit from being more likable, but Romney’s unlikability is based in large part on factors that are related to the job he’s seeking — he actually doesn’t understand the issues facing average Americans, and his policy proposals reflect that; and he can’t even articulate what it is he stands for because he changes his positions so frequently.
at least in today’s world, divided government equals gridlock. Give a party strong majorities and things will get done. One party will hurt the country, the other won’t, but people don’t have to take my word for it: they get to vote every two years and decide for themselves.
The point is, though, that if they want a government that can operate, they need to vote one party into power. Then, let the chips fall where they may. If they don’t like the results, they can change them in two years.
Until the Republicans become a party that welcomes moderates and welcomes working together with Democrats or even members of their own party who don’t hold fully to their (insane and unrepresentative — even within their own party) platform, then there’s no way on earth they should vote for divided government. Because a government in which any Republican has the ability to block action means that action will be blocked.
He was a neighbor, and my Dad’s friend.
Since then I’ve never found a single Republican deserving of my vote.
but even more shocked at the supporting posts. I would guess the idea of voting party is something Democrats would accuse Republicans of doing consistently and voicing a long list of reasons why it’s a bad idea.
I have followed the “lame rationale” that I don’t vote the party, I just vote for the person who represents my ideology better and they happen to be Republicans. But does that really happen “all the time”?
I think not he bigger elections it really does since anyone seriously running always has to be in line with their party’s ideology, even here in MA where you often have more moderate Republicans preaching to an electorate featuring more moderate Republican voters. Down on a more local level (State Senator, Rep…) I have voted for Democrats when I like their views.
I suppose it’s hard to answer the question of whether you vote for someone because of their views or party without ignoring your bias. The other thing that happens is often both candidates suck and we don’t like either, then we default to party.
So I have to admit that I agree with the poster, I vote/support the party and not the man/woman… except in extreme circumstances (nuts, criminals…).
n/t
I would be “shocked but I’d agree”.
I guess I can respect that. I could never, ever do that.
for what it’s worth, is that “voting party” means taking into account, as one factor among many, who your candidate is likely to support for leadership positions. That is still “voting the candidate” rather than “voting the party,” because who a candidate supports for leadership posts says a lot about the candidate. For example, if Scott Brown were to pledge not to support any person for leadership who did not share his views on choice, that would be a big deal, and would go a long way toward blunting one of my big criticisms of him, which is that he talks a good “independent” game but he generally doesn’t walk the walk in ways that actually matter. I don’t think Brown is entirely in line with the national GOP, and I’ve written before that I’m not “angry” at him. But I do think that he is weak as a political figure, and that he is unlikely to achieve much of substance in the Senate.
I can’t say that making sure we have someone to vote for Harry Reid gets me all that excited, particularly when there are likely to be fewer than 49 other such votes.
In my lifetime, the Republicans have not yet offered a superior candidate in any race that I cared about — President, Senator, Representative, Governor or, for that matter, Selectman. The closest I ever came to voting for a Republican was when the Democratic choice was (a) Ed King and (b) John Silber.
If the Republican party ever offered a candidate with real ideas, real vision, and who shared my values, I would certainly consider voting for that candidate. It hasn’t happened in my lifetime, and I don’t expect it to happen in the future.
I think party affiliation means something. I think parties do tend to represent value systems, and I think the candidates that emerge from a party tend to reflect the value systems of that party.
I’m proud to declare myself a Democrat, and I’ve always been proud to vote my party.
for selectman and Republicans have voted for me.
At the town level (at least in my town), there are Republicans who want to see our town make progress. We just voted to spend $1.1 million to build a library. Many, many of the supporters will be voting for Brown and Romney in the general election. The Republican ideology doesn’t play out very much at the town level in my experience.
Can I have your plans?
According to RSMeans construction cost data (the most commonly used estimating tool — Google is your friend), a “typical” library of about 11,000 square feet will cost about $1.1M (this is 2008 data). That is not a particularly large library (the library in Spencer, MA is 13,500 square feet).
Perhaps you should do a tiny bit of investigation before assuming the worst about local government.
I read his comment as implying that he thought that 1.1M is cheap.
I’ve been trying to help build a new library and we can’t find a design below $5-6M. I was happy Mark was building a new one for $1.1 but I was curious what the plans looked like so maybe we could copy or learn something from them. I’m a big supporter of libraries for many reasons including the computers for people in town with no internet or in some cases who cannot afford computers.
I assumed, given your aversion to government spending, that you thought it was too high. I was wrong, and I apologize.
And I really don’t have an aversion to government spending as much as I do to “wasteful” government spending. I want to stimulate the economy but I want it to be done efficiently and with laser like accuracy. I just posted on Sept 8th a suggestion about the Fed sending $3-4 Million to every city/town in the country to spend on infrastructure to get people back to work both directly as well as the materials needed for building schools, libraries, bridges, dams, roads…
My problem with Obama’s Stimulus package was I disagreed where it should be spent, not that we didn’t need it.
Kbusch has been smacking me for a long time that the Stimulus was too small and even though I’m a fiscal conservative, I have to agree (maybe finally) that it was too small, but I will continue to say that even a larger one spent in the same manner as the first one would not have worked.
you’re being a bit unfair — perhaps unknowingly
I see Belmont’s proposal at
http://www.belmont.lib.ma.us/images/stories/NewBuilding/financialbelmont.pdf at $265.00/square
or
http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/x2127210711/Groundbreaking-brings-crowd-to-Millis-Public-Library
at $435.00
Construction is very expensive in the Northeast United State – be it filed subbids, prevailing wage or building codes.
I thought that johnd was alleging that $1.1M was too high (and I apologized above). I wrote, correctly I think, that building even a small library was likely to be an expensive proposition. You have persuasively argued that construction costs in the NE are higher than the national average I cited.
It appears that we violently agree. The cited $1.1M for a new library is a bargain.
Not the building – unless it’s like 3,000 square feet.
Although even 3,000 SF sounds like it would be higher than $1.1M.
$1.1 million. We received the land through a gift. We received $200-300 thousand in gifts. The rest is a state grant. I think the whole project is about $6 million.
To qualify for state loans, libraries have to be a certain number of square feet per population size. Our town is 6,300 people. Our existing library was completed with a Carnegie grant prior to 1920. It’s about the size of 3 car garage with a two car garage below and so packed that it’s completely inaccessible to anyone in a wheel chair.
say, town property assessor. Or even Board of Selectmen. Such a person, even if Republican, might support a new town library plan popular in town. And then, ten years later, such a person might end up in the State Senate. And then one fine day you wake up after a bizarre January special election and you live in one of the most liberal states in the nation with a new U.S. Senator who votes with the Tea Party more often than not.
So no thanks to today’s GOP at any level. People are in the Republican Party for a reason and I can’t think of any Republican candidate I would have preferred on the issues since maybe Lowell Weicker vs. Lieberman in 1988. And I wasn’t old enough to vote then and I’ve never voted in Connecticut.
… where the rubber hits the road. Right wing fantasy budgeteering can’t gain traction on the road toward municipal solvency.
Back when 96.9FM had not yet become the sesspool it now is, one of the few points on which I could agree with Jay Severan is that the most important thing about voting for President and the Senate was the Supreme Court. As such, until such time as the Democrats nominate someone for President of Senate as vial and offensive as John Silber, it is unlikely that I would even consider a Republican for national office. Don’t tell the trolls, but I will always vote party for offices that affect the Supreme Court.
Not President of Senate. Do’h!