Losing your base? Yeah, right
So, in the midst of my morning routine, I got around to the Editorials section of the Houston Chronicle today to read an interesting piece by Robert Novak. You know, the columnist who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent after someone who deserves to be fired told him about her because her husband said something the Bush administration disagreed with and therefore deserved to have his and his wife's life and careers put in danger. Phew, okay, had to get that out of my system. (Incidentally, Jeff wrote a good entry about the Plame fiasco.)
Anyway, today Novak was writing about how many Republicans are not pleased with Frist's timing on breaking with the president on the stem-cell issue. I'm sure you'd need a whole team of experts working around the clock to tell you that one. The column goes on to talk about several Frist boners over the course of his service as Senate majority leader. (For one blogger's analysis of Frist's change of heart, go here.)
But that's not what I want to rant about either. The line that caught my eye was when Novak pointed out that "advocacy of new embryonic research alienates social conservatives whose support he needs." This sentence is correct in both its points: almost all Republican candidates need social conservatives' votes to succeed, and supporting stem-cell research does not sit well with them.
My question is, so what?
The accusations fly all the time: Democrats say that Republicans cater to the right, the Pubs counter that Dems cater to the left, and in many ways, they're both right (er, correct). But the problem is, there's no need to cater to either extreme, because who the hell else are they gonna vote for? Is a social conservative gonna be so pissed about Frist's stem-cell viewpoint that they turn around and vote for the Democratic candidate? No way. Is an avid pro-choicer gonna vote for a Republican just because insert-Democrat-here favors a ban on partial-birth abortion? I wouldn't like those odds in Vegas.
(As far as third-party candidates go, I refer you to "The Simpsons Halloween Special" when Kang and Kodos take over the bodies of presidential candidates just before the election. One citizen says, "Well I for one intend to vote for a third-party candidate", to which Kodos (or was it Kang?) replies, "Go ahead! Throw your vote away!")
American political viewpoints, in my opinion, can best be charted by a normal bell curve. 95% of us are no more than two standard deviations from the center (even as a social radical, I tend to count myself in this category). These are your swing votes. These are the votes that will make or break you as a political candidate. They are also the majority of that 50% of the population that doesn't exercise that most fundamental American right of voting. Could it be because no one listens to them? Because no one wants to lose the outlying base they have no threat of losing anyway?
Probably not. It's probably more just laziness or apathy. But hey, it's just a rant.
Song lyric of the day:
"The future teaches you the be alone
The present, to be afraid and cold
So if I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists"
- Manic Street Preachers, If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next
Anyway, today Novak was writing about how many Republicans are not pleased with Frist's timing on breaking with the president on the stem-cell issue. I'm sure you'd need a whole team of experts working around the clock to tell you that one. The column goes on to talk about several Frist boners over the course of his service as Senate majority leader. (For one blogger's analysis of Frist's change of heart, go here.)
But that's not what I want to rant about either. The line that caught my eye was when Novak pointed out that "advocacy of new embryonic research alienates social conservatives whose support he needs." This sentence is correct in both its points: almost all Republican candidates need social conservatives' votes to succeed, and supporting stem-cell research does not sit well with them.
My question is, so what?
The accusations fly all the time: Democrats say that Republicans cater to the right, the Pubs counter that Dems cater to the left, and in many ways, they're both right (er, correct). But the problem is, there's no need to cater to either extreme, because who the hell else are they gonna vote for? Is a social conservative gonna be so pissed about Frist's stem-cell viewpoint that they turn around and vote for the Democratic candidate? No way. Is an avid pro-choicer gonna vote for a Republican just because insert-Democrat-here favors a ban on partial-birth abortion? I wouldn't like those odds in Vegas.
(As far as third-party candidates go, I refer you to "The Simpsons Halloween Special" when Kang and Kodos take over the bodies of presidential candidates just before the election. One citizen says, "Well I for one intend to vote for a third-party candidate", to which Kodos (or was it Kang?) replies, "Go ahead! Throw your vote away!")
American political viewpoints, in my opinion, can best be charted by a normal bell curve. 95% of us are no more than two standard deviations from the center (even as a social radical, I tend to count myself in this category). These are your swing votes. These are the votes that will make or break you as a political candidate. They are also the majority of that 50% of the population that doesn't exercise that most fundamental American right of voting. Could it be because no one listens to them? Because no one wants to lose the outlying base they have no threat of losing anyway?
Probably not. It's probably more just laziness or apathy. But hey, it's just a rant.
Song lyric of the day:
"The future teaches you the be alone
The present, to be afraid and cold
So if I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists"
- Manic Street Preachers, If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home