TOPICS
TOPICS
Lesser of Two Evils
This past week I traveled with my 13-year-old son, Jeff. Each night we watched an evening-news broadcast or one of the cable news shows.
And each night Jeff's eyes seemed to widen even more than the night before as we watched the latest horrific reports from around the globe -- ever more kidnappings and suicide bombings in Iraq; Hamas and Hezbollah rockets raining down on Israeli cities; Israeli air strikes and ground forces moving into the Gaza Strip and Lebanon; the aftermath of the horrendous commuter train bombings in Mumbai; and the nuclear threat posed by the mad despots of Iran and North Korea.
No wonder all Jeff wants to watch is ESPN.
In 2002 and 2004, in the first midterm and presidential elections after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the security issue unquestionably helped President Bush and the Republican Party. To many voters, Bush symbolized a steady and determined hand at the helm of the ship of state. And his party also benefited from having long been more trusted than the Democrats on national security.
So, will national security issues again work to the advantage of the GOP this fall, or has that well run dry for the party? Although it would be hard to argue these days that Democrats' credibility on national security issues has gone up -- they can't seem to agree on much -- it is equally hard to say that the Republicans have the edge on this issue that they had as recently as two years ago.
Without 9/11 or the national security issue, who knows what would have happened in the 2002 and 2004 elections, but it's a decent bet that Republicans would not want to risk replaying either election under different circumstances. National security had become their ace in the hole. But now they aren't even holding face cards, let alone aces.
Every farmer knows that the crops need to be rotated from time to time, just as every car owner knows that tires need to be rotated periodically. Presidents, political parties, and governorships are much like crops and tires in that way. And now Republicans have to try to avoid being rotated out in this election and the next, despite a slowing economy and their disadvantage on a host of other issues.
For all the talk about Democrats needing to "be for something," a stronger case can be made that the Democrats should just stay out of the way and let events take their course. If Democrats prevail on November 7, their success won't be due to any great idea they have or great message they are selling.
It will be because they are not Republicans and because people voted against Republicans. The Republicans' only hope of retaining control on both sides of Capitol Hill is to get across the message that "no matter how angry or disappointed you are in us, Democrats are far worse and would screw things up even more."
Pretty pathetic, isn't it: Either one side wins because of what it isn't, or the other side wins because it convinces voters that it is the lesser of two evils.
Admittedly, this is a very cynical view. But, more and more, it also seems to be the view of the people I meet as I travel around the country. They see a little they like -- and a lot they don't -- about each of the two major political parties and, for that matter, most of the parties' leaders as well.
Yet credible, qualified third-party or independent presidential candidates rarely emerge. And in the absence of great personal wealth or high name recognition at the outset of the campaign, the deck is thoroughly stacked against such contenders.
In their current dissatisfaction, how will voters respond when the time comes to choose Bush's successor? Will the electorate move toward a strong, telegenic leader and care little about that candidate's level of expertise and policy positions? Or, will voters seek an extraordinarily talented individual who seems up to the challenges of the presidency? In other words, will competence trump charisma?
As a bright 13-year-old could tell you after a week of watching the world tearing itself apart, it's hard to feel secure these days. Nearly five years after 9/11, the Republicans haven't managed to make Americans feel safe. And it's easy to suspect that this fall and again in 2008, the voters will be ready to try something different.
COMMENTS
- Perhaps FDA should take a look at who controls and changes at any whim the benefits he or she will receive in government retirement. As the political positions are filled, so goes the future of that retirement. Jerry Posted August 8, 2006 11:00 AM
- I have long maintained that, especially in national elections, we voters have constantly and consistently been faced with "the choice of the least worst." Don't you wonder why? Political parties stick to their guns as far as their ideals. Nothing has changed on these two fronts over the last three decades. Each party just gets more deeply entrenched in fostering its own basic political philosophy, irrespective of the changing world around us, rather than engaging in real debate across the aisle on what is best for the country. The only way to change this is term limits. And don't expect Congress to inflict them upon itself any time soon. The voters are the only answer. Therefore, I intend to vote against the incumbent, regardless of party. If this idea catches on we will have an entirely new Congress every six years. Maybe the Congress will wake up and start acting in the country's best interest instead of its own, and we might be presented with candidates from both sides who are interested in governing instead of constantly posturing and running for re-election, and maybe we'll be faced with some real choices rather than having "the choice of the least worst.” GovExec.com reader Posted July 25, 2006 5:03 PM
- This is nothing more complex than a raw, naked lust for power by both major parties. Both would have voters believe there are no viable alternatives -- in fact, the major parties go out of their way to prevent viable alternatives. For example, Texas election laws require third party candidates to gather the signatures of 45,000 registered voters via petition for that candidate to be "put on the ballot." The kicker is, any registered voters who exercised their franchise (voted) in the primary election are ineligible to sign a petition for a third party candidate. I personally asked my local county election official about the issue and was told they didn’t know and to write Austin with my question -- by the way, that official holds an elected position in the state of Texas as a county election official ... huh? At least two of the nationally known radio talk show hosts proudly proclaim their partisan stance and strive to convince the electorate a third party vote is wasted, will help elect the other guy or they will even go so far as calling third party voters "losertarians"... anything to hold or gain power. They would have us believe that anyone that doesn't vote their way is stupid, perhaps even un-American! Cracked & Wired Posted July 25, 2006 12:26 PM
