October 21, 2010
To: The Editor
If you (Texas voters) had to let either Rick Perry or Bill White hold all of the money you possess, and did not intend to count it either when it was given or when it was returned, which one would you trust more to be custodian of this money? Which would you trust more, Barack Obama or Newt Gingrich? Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner? Sharron Angle or Harry Reid? Your Republican candidate for Congress or the Democrat? If your plans are to vote for the candidates you trust less, will your conscience have been your guide or will it have died?
I believe it has not died. I believe that Republicans will likely take some seats in Congress, not because the polls suggest it is so, but because those who prefer the Democrat's agenda will choose to stay home on election day. I believe that regardless of what voters have said in the polls, they will trust Democrats more to bring us through to a sustainable economic recovery. President Obama has even said he will be willing to work with Republicans who may have managed to win only because his 2008 supporters are not so motivated this time.
But that cooperation will require that responsible Republicans be elected. You'll remember, Obama tried to work with the present crop of Republicans with very little success, other than one or two Republican defections on a few very important occasions. But where voters must choose between broadminded Democrats and Republican ideologues or less, Republican and independent voters (and the American people) would be better served if they helped elect Democrats who are willing to work with Republicans.
The value of the Tea Party in this year's election is important in that it says to Obama and the Democrats that they have one more chance to get this thing right. Most Tea Party members are smart. They know that Republicans don't have a plan to bring about a quick recovery from our present economic condition. They also know that Republican didn't have a plan to even bring us as far as Democrats have. How do they know? They know because Republicans never say specifically what they will do to hasten recovery if they are placed in charge. Nor do they say specifically what they would have tried in 2009 to hasten recovery had they been in charge. (Why Democratic candidates aren't emphasizing this on the campaign trail is a mystery to me.)
The main reason why Republican can't fool all members of the Tea Party is because many (if not most) Tea Party members joined the movement and attended rallies only because they were invited to do so by employers, friends or family members whose invitations they thought they could not refuse.
The news media and news analysts aren't can't seem to make up their minds why Republicans will or should win congressional seats in November elections. They vacillate between the notion that Republican will win seats because a lack of enthusiasm by the Democratic base in an off year election and the desire of people polled to have the country move in in a different direction. Both could be true, but neither might be.
I don't believe people want a different direction for the country. They want the same direction: They want jobs and job security in the America they have known. Democrats will not lose congressional seats in November because of the votes of the ten percent who are unemployed nor because of the fifteen percent who would like jobs: Democrats will lose seats because of the anxiety of middle-class workers and the working poor who have jobs but fear they will lose them unless economic conditions improve. Many of them seem inclined to place their hopes in the change of direction that Republicans would provide. Many of these voters don't have the time to evaluate track records of political parties nor can they place slow economic progress in a proper perspective when rapid progress is what many people need and everybody wants.
So Democrats will lose some seats, but not because they should lose them. They will lose them because the combination of (1) voters who always vote Republican, (2) those who vote always Republican when there is no clear choice or reason not to, and (3) those who can be persuaded by reason, and are somehow are persuaded that Republicans will manage to get it right if they are only given another chance.
But so much anonymous money has been poured into the campaigns this year to support Republican candidates that the process has been distorted and no longer necessarily nor properly reflects the will of the people. The people--even those whose party is benefiting from this flood of financial contributions must decide if that's a fair advantage and whether it's an advantage they wish to retain. A vote for a Republican candidate in this November election will be a vote that elections where outcomes continue to be determined by exorbitance amounts of money from unknown donors. There have always been people who would not mind this practice. But that had not be true of a majority of Americans.
Many of us have already made up our minds how we will vote. But there is a significant minority who are undecided and will be watching Fox and MSNBC more to help get a closer look at what is true (and claimed to be true) about the two parties and their candidates. These most conscientious voters will have made the difference during this election.
I'm betting that on November 2 voters will prove that the American conscience has not died, that the ways we elect our representatives for government and the ways we pursue economic, political and social progress in the United States will confirm, again, that our sustaining American traditions and our deep-seated American values still matter.
Ronald
No comments:
Post a Comment