Ah, November, when a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of Election Day.
Norman Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, has an interesting Op-Ed in the New York Times today. [link] He posits that closely divided governments skew the governance process by transforming every act of governing into an act of political theater designed to affect the next electoral cycle.
Ornstein's article made me think of a tangential point about the even split between Republicans and Democrats in state houses, governors' mansions and the federal government: How is it that anyone can claim a mandate for anything other than centrist policies? As an example, (and not to raise the "we was robbed" banner), President Bush got fewer votes than the other guy in the 2000 election. How is that a "mandate" to do anything other than play to the center? And what does it mean for the future, also known as Wednesday, when, I suspect, we will wake up to Republican gloating and Democratic handwringing?
Perhaps the Democrats -- who, by most "professional" counts, aren't likely to win control of the House of Representatives, and could lose control of the Senate by one senator -- should just declare victory and go home. How about this: If the Republicans don't substantially increase their lead in Congress, let the Democrats assert that the American public, when presented with an opportunity to show that it endorsed the policies of the President, roundly withheld its support. Then, at every turn, tell the Republicans that they have no mandate for their actions, and make the case for 2004 that the Republicans are out of touch with what a majority of Americans actually want.
Who cares whether it's true? As President Bush proved, it's not whether you have the mandate, it's whether you act as if you have the mandate that matters.
Of course, one caveat here is that the Democratic Party would actually have to behave like a party in opposition. Perhaps the one flaw of Ornstein's analysis is that in point of fact, the Democratic Party -- on the Bush tax cuts, the war resolution and other "platform issues" -- has often been a far left wing of the Republican Party. As a result, many issues of policy have been exercises not in electoral politics, but in political me-tooism. A true back-bench party would cry "Foul!" as often as it could, in order to point up the difference between itself and the party in power.
[Truth in advertising, there are glimmers of this in the Senate, where Senator Leahy has used the Senate Judiciary Committee to point up the hard-right turn that the Bush Administration has made in its judicial appointments, and earned the appellation "obstructionist" for his efforts. You know that a back-bencher is successful when the ruling party calls him an obstructionist! Way to go, Pat!]
****
And now for my election picks.
N.Y. Governor: I will hold my nose and vote for Carl McCall. He'll lose anyway, but the cynical political corruption of the Pataki administration is just too much to stomach. (By the way, I define political corruption as cronyist vote-dealing that subverts the interests of the commonweal for political considerations. This is distinct from ordinary corruption, of which I have no evidence and make no accusation).
House of Representatives. I will vote Charlie Rangel, although neither he nor his challenger could be bothered to reach out to me and let me know (a) who is running (in the case of the challenger) or (b) why I should vote for either one. In deference to the larger picture (control of Congress), I will side with Rangel, the Democrat.
New York State Assembly. For the longest time, I was planning to vote for law-school classmate Jonathan Bing. Then I found out that his district ends at 96th Street, and I live north of there. I went to the Assembly web site to find out who my representative is, but was given one of three names (since the search is by ZIP code, but the districts cross ZIP code boundaries. Go figure). I guess, since none of my potential Assemblymembers (Pete Grannis, Adam Clayton Powell IV or Jon Ravitz) have seen fit to find me, I will vote for whichever one's name is on the ballot at my polling place and is the Democratic candidate. Actually, I'm curious whether there is even a Republican candidate...
New York State Senate. I think I'm represented by Olga Mendez, a Democrat (although again, the Senate website returned two possible senators). Her opposition, if there is any, is probably too fringe to have reached out to me. And, if the 2000 election is any indication, it won't matter which party lever I pull -- Mendez was the candidate for the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independence Party and the Liberal Party. The only parties she didn't represent were the Greens and the Right-to-Life Party. What's more, she got more votes as a Republican (4,701) than her two competitors got combined.
Charter Revision: Yes. Mayoral succession should be a matter for voters as soon as possible after a mayor is unable to serve. Allowing the Public Advocate to become mayor for as long as 18 months is too much. To critics who say that the system could result in four mayors in one year, I say, first, that's unlikely (it would require a sort-of perfect storm of the elected mayor becoming incapable of serving in an election year, followed by appointment of someone uninterested in running in, or incapable of winning, a special election, and then the emergence of a different winner in the special election, and finally, a defeat of the new incumbent in the general election in November [unassisted triple plays are more common]), and second, if that's the best argument you can muster, did you really need to waste my time on that?
[For the non-baseball savvy, an unassisted triple play is possible when there are runners on first and second, with no one out, and the manager calls for a hit-and-run play (where the runners begin running when the pitch is released, and it's up to the batter to make contact and put the ball in play). If the batter hits a line drive directly at the second baseman, the second baseman can catch the fly ball (one out), tag the runner who is already running from first to second (two outs) and step on second base, forcing out the runner who was running from second to third (three outs).]
Norman Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, has an interesting Op-Ed in the New York Times today. [link] He posits that closely divided governments skew the governance process by transforming every act of governing into an act of political theater designed to affect the next electoral cycle.
Ornstein's article made me think of a tangential point about the even split between Republicans and Democrats in state houses, governors' mansions and the federal government: How is it that anyone can claim a mandate for anything other than centrist policies? As an example, (and not to raise the "we was robbed" banner), President Bush got fewer votes than the other guy in the 2000 election. How is that a "mandate" to do anything other than play to the center? And what does it mean for the future, also known as Wednesday, when, I suspect, we will wake up to Republican gloating and Democratic handwringing?
Perhaps the Democrats -- who, by most "professional" counts, aren't likely to win control of the House of Representatives, and could lose control of the Senate by one senator -- should just declare victory and go home. How about this: If the Republicans don't substantially increase their lead in Congress, let the Democrats assert that the American public, when presented with an opportunity to show that it endorsed the policies of the President, roundly withheld its support. Then, at every turn, tell the Republicans that they have no mandate for their actions, and make the case for 2004 that the Republicans are out of touch with what a majority of Americans actually want.
Who cares whether it's true? As President Bush proved, it's not whether you have the mandate, it's whether you act as if you have the mandate that matters.
Of course, one caveat here is that the Democratic Party would actually have to behave like a party in opposition. Perhaps the one flaw of Ornstein's analysis is that in point of fact, the Democratic Party -- on the Bush tax cuts, the war resolution and other "platform issues" -- has often been a far left wing of the Republican Party. As a result, many issues of policy have been exercises not in electoral politics, but in political me-tooism. A true back-bench party would cry "Foul!" as often as it could, in order to point up the difference between itself and the party in power.
[Truth in advertising, there are glimmers of this in the Senate, where Senator Leahy has used the Senate Judiciary Committee to point up the hard-right turn that the Bush Administration has made in its judicial appointments, and earned the appellation "obstructionist" for his efforts. You know that a back-bencher is successful when the ruling party calls him an obstructionist! Way to go, Pat!]
****
And now for my election picks.
N.Y. Governor: I will hold my nose and vote for Carl McCall. He'll lose anyway, but the cynical political corruption of the Pataki administration is just too much to stomach. (By the way, I define political corruption as cronyist vote-dealing that subverts the interests of the commonweal for political considerations. This is distinct from ordinary corruption, of which I have no evidence and make no accusation).
House of Representatives. I will vote Charlie Rangel, although neither he nor his challenger could be bothered to reach out to me and let me know (a) who is running (in the case of the challenger) or (b) why I should vote for either one. In deference to the larger picture (control of Congress), I will side with Rangel, the Democrat.
New York State Assembly. For the longest time, I was planning to vote for law-school classmate Jonathan Bing. Then I found out that his district ends at 96th Street, and I live north of there. I went to the Assembly web site to find out who my representative is, but was given one of three names (since the search is by ZIP code, but the districts cross ZIP code boundaries. Go figure). I guess, since none of my potential Assemblymembers (Pete Grannis, Adam Clayton Powell IV or Jon Ravitz) have seen fit to find me, I will vote for whichever one's name is on the ballot at my polling place and is the Democratic candidate. Actually, I'm curious whether there is even a Republican candidate...
New York State Senate. I think I'm represented by Olga Mendez, a Democrat (although again, the Senate website returned two possible senators). Her opposition, if there is any, is probably too fringe to have reached out to me. And, if the 2000 election is any indication, it won't matter which party lever I pull -- Mendez was the candidate for the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independence Party and the Liberal Party. The only parties she didn't represent were the Greens and the Right-to-Life Party. What's more, she got more votes as a Republican (4,701) than her two competitors got combined.
Charter Revision: Yes. Mayoral succession should be a matter for voters as soon as possible after a mayor is unable to serve. Allowing the Public Advocate to become mayor for as long as 18 months is too much. To critics who say that the system could result in four mayors in one year, I say, first, that's unlikely (it would require a sort-of perfect storm of the elected mayor becoming incapable of serving in an election year, followed by appointment of someone uninterested in running in, or incapable of winning, a special election, and then the emergence of a different winner in the special election, and finally, a defeat of the new incumbent in the general election in November [unassisted triple plays are more common]), and second, if that's the best argument you can muster, did you really need to waste my time on that?
[For the non-baseball savvy, an unassisted triple play is possible when there are runners on first and second, with no one out, and the manager calls for a hit-and-run play (where the runners begin running when the pitch is released, and it's up to the batter to make contact and put the ball in play). If the batter hits a line drive directly at the second baseman, the second baseman can catch the fly ball (one out), tag the runner who is already running from first to second (two outs) and step on second base, forcing out the runner who was running from second to third (three outs).]
posted by Daniel at 11:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home