Why The Heck II
After last week’s post a friend asked me a very pertinent
question. He said he understood my
thinking in voting for Barack Obama in 2008, but found it difficult to fathom how I could possibly reject Romney in 2012.
Romney, in his mind, was a terrific leader, an excellent Governor of Massachusetts,
a man of the world, of deep experience, and a superb manager.
Romney would have been a great President, my friend insisted. Why the heck hadn’t I voted for Romney?
Issues, I said. Issues
mattered to me. I wasn’t what many on
the Right contemptuously call an Obamabot.
I was aware of Obama’s flaws. But
I watched the Republican primary debates very closely, I saw Mitt move
sharply right, and I found the gap between what I believed and what he was
saying grow to a chasm. Mitt Romney had
tried so hard to convince the GOP base that he was one of them, that he
convinced me of the same.
To be fair, I didn’t have any illusions that Mitt was the
passionate and committed “severe conservative” he claimed to be. But by failing to be his own man, he made me
evaluate him on the terms his party defined for him. Those were terms I (and apparently the
majority) couldn’t go with.
My friend insisted that Mitt would never have governed that
way. But I don’t think we should be
guessing what politicians really mean when they are whispering to their
campaign competitors, or shouting to their base. We should take them at their word. And we should evaluate whether we want to be
led by them in the direction they indicate.
Now is the time to make those evaluations—now and over the
next two years, as we pick a new government.
We are about to have midterm elections in which every poll and every
prognosticator predict Republican gains and possibly a huge Republican
wave.
Forget about being “Ready for Hillary.” Are we ready for the Republicans? How should
the voters react to potential GOP dominance? Is it what we want?
Obviously, if you are a Republican, you can head to the
polls and measure the drapes. But if you
are a moderate wondering who to vote for, or a disheartened Democrat wondering
whether to vote at all, I would ask you to picture a Republican future, and ask
yourself if that’s the type of political world you want to live in. What do Republicans do when they are in
charge?
The best way to gauge that is to see what they have done.
Priority one tends to be voting rights. According to the
Brennan Center for Justice, 22 states have enacted new restrictions on voting
to be in effect for the 2014-midterm elections.
These vary, but include more stringent voter identification laws,
reduced or eliminated early voting, changes to absentee voting, restrictions on
registration drives, and fewer hours for polling places. The primary purpose of these, even the GOP
admits, is directed at reducing Democratic turnout, particularly among
minorities and younger voters. Think of
it as securing the borders against unwanted choices by the electorate.
Also a target are working people. The GOP loves the working person, so long they don’t have
the temerity to organize, or ask for higher wages, or equal pay for women, or
better health and safety regulations. In 2013 alone, 21 states introduced
right-to-work legislation. At the
Supreme Court, a conservative majority legitimized discriminatory conduct based
on religious belief, and curtailed the rights of public service unions to
collect dues.
The environment? I
want to table the entire question of climate change, since there is absolutely
no way you are ever going to convince the overwhelming majority of Republican
voters that such a thing exists. So, for
the purposes of argument, let’s stipulate it's a gigantic fraud. How about the rest of the environment—water,
air, land preservation? I don’t think
anyone can make a serious case that the GOP supports any substantive
regulations, and particularly not those that involve the extraction
industries. Who co-wrote the GOP
platform on the environment? Congressman
Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s energy and power subcommittee,
and a major supporter of coal, gas, nuclear, and “reducing the regulatory
burden.” Want to see the GOP in action
on the topic? Visit North Carolina, where,
earlier this year, an accident at a waste pond caused nearly 27 million gallons of
contaminated water and much as 82,000 tons (that’s “tons”) of coal ash spilled
into North Carolina’s Dan River. What
happened to good old Duke? To start
with, they were well protected—from liability.
Before the incident occurred, state regulators, as directed by newly
elected Governor Pat McCrory (a Duke employee for 28 years) blocked lawsuits
against Duke for existing hazardous sites, eventually shielding 31 waste ponds
from litigation and absolving Duke of responsibility for cleaning up it’s own
mess. Then, after the accident, it
rushed to declare the water safe to drink despite having detected substantially
elevated arsenic levels.
Maybe
the environment isn’t important to you. How
about personal privacy, and reproductive rights? Just since the start of 2014,
13 states have enacted new regulations restricting abortion, and most of these
aren’t little “tweaks” but rather omnibus actions with the clear intent of
closing any and all abortion providers in their states. I understand the pro-life arguments and respect
those who oppose abortions. But, if you are a voter with anything less that an
“A” rating from the evangelical right and don’t want this view imposed on you, you
should strongly consider that the GOP expects to nationalize what they have
accomplished at the state level.
And guns,
an issue that people get more passionate about than pregnancy? The GOP and the NRA stand together as
one. Guns for good guys and good gals, pretty much everywhere,
in every place, and at every time, and for anyone who can get a permit. Maybe you
are like me, don't oppose reasonable gun ownership, and don’t care what people do in other states. If Texans want to play cowboy, and you live
in New York, let them play cowboy in Texas. But, that’s not enough for the GOP. They support what amounts to universal
reciprocity on carry. If a Texan can get
a license, regardless of his background, his health, even his emotional stability,
it must be honored in every state that permits carry. That’s just about everywhere. You need not
meet New York’s standards for obtaining a permit. When Ted Cruz rolls his tank
into Manhattan and flashes his Lone Star permit, Texas rules. That’s to be national
policy, written into the GOP Platform.
At the state level, Georgia passed a bill of such (breath-taking)
breadth that I think I’d want to buy a gun as a precaution before I went
there. In Georgia, not only can
virtually everyone get a gun, but they can use it: you can claim “stand your
ground” even if the firearm you are standing with isn’t legal.
These
five are an “O-fer” for me, and I can offer a dozen more. You might agree with me on some or all, but
still decide that utility is more important that principle, and just vote for
the guy you think will make the trains run on time. That’s the beauty of living in a
democracy. We don’t have to justify our
choices. We just have to make them, and then live with the consequences.
My
friend told me today he was going to convert me. He’s very smart, and very persuasive. But, he
has got some “issues” to work on.
September
10, 2014
Michael
Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Please
join us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SyncPol
