Editorials & Opinion: Sunday, February 01, 2004
Don't waste my vote: Radical center offers harsh advice for both parties
By Bill Broz
Special to The Times
The pundits tell us that this year's presidential election promises to be the most polarized in decades. They assert that emotion for and against President Bush is running so high that voters' minds are mostly made up.
We swing voters seem to be on the endangered species list here in 2004 and so, the conventional wisdom goes, are in a poor position to "swing" much of anything.
Well, not so fast. Polarized the electorate may be, but the margins are razor-thin. If the 2000 Florida vote taught us anything, it's that a tiny sliver of the electorate can make all the difference.
Washington voters will soon have the opportunity to make their own mark on the burgeoning presidential campaign. So it's time now for this dedicated independent to make his plea to both major parties not to continue certain frequently recurring but obnoxious behaviors.
For the Democrats:
"Bush stole the election!"
No sale. If this is the story you need to tell in order to rile up the faithful, knock yourselves out. Just leave us independents out of it; we're not about to salivate over this particular variety of raw meat.
The Florida election was close enough to strain the precision of the then-current vote-counting technology. Controversial it may have been. But, get over it.
"Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the war in Iraq!
" Please. If this is what passes for reasoned political discourse in this day and age, the left really is dead and buried.
Let's start with a readily accepted definition of "lie": a deliberate untruth. Sorry, but for all the rhetoric, no one has presented a shred of evidence to support this.
What folks like me are willing to seriously consider is a profoundly flawed decision-making process that included selective use of data to support a preordained conclusion. In other words, "hearing what you want to hear."
This is certainly a case of poor judgment and a breakdown of institutional checks and balances. Lying? Nope.
"Bush is an idiot."
Based on the alleged reasoning I've seen from the president's critics, they're not in an especially strong position to level this charge.
George W. Bush may lack the verbal agility so dearly cherished by those who possess it — primarily media talking heads and other self-appointed intelligentsia. So what?
I'm going to make a decision based on the guy's track record (mixed thus far), not the surface fluency of his words.
"Bush is a unilateralist cowboy."
So accused because of treaties rejected and agreements not signed: the Kyoto Protocol on global warming; the International Criminal Court; abrogation of the ABM Treaty, etc.
Would it really be asking too much to look beyond the mere fact of non-concurrence, and examine why it occurred?
For this independent voter, international harmony and avoiding the appearance of arrogance are not sufficient grounds to ratify treaties.
Agreements have to be in our national interest — that is what we pay the president to look after. Many of the rejected agreements were profoundly flawed and unfair. I would single out the Kyoto Protocol, so tilted against the U.S. as to be laughable.
The president was not alone in his opinion, by the way. Kyoto also had been defeated in the Senate — 95 to 0! If this is unilateralism, it's the damnedest bipartisan unilateralism I've ever seen.
At any rate, whatever his flaws (and he's got 'em, all right), give the president credit for recognizing that leadership isn't a popularity contest.
Republicans, don't get smug:
"We haven't found weapons of mass destruction but the Iraq War was justified anyway."
Mr. President, you have a serious problem.
I'm one of the guys — and there are a lot of us — who supported the administration's decision to go to war based largely on Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the United Nations.
Powell cited ostensible evidence of WMDs and, man, did it sound like a good story. Far as I'm concerned, you're now trying to pull the old switcheroo, changing your story after the fact. I don't appreciate the crude attempt at bamboozlement.
Do you really think our memories are that short?
Cherry-picking data to support political conclusions.
I don't think you lied about WMDs, but I do think it's plausible that, in your collective disdain for the CIA and its sister organizations, you've selectively culled data to support what you really wanted to do from the get-go: eliminate Saddam Hussein.
One of the reasons I voted for you in 2000 was the expectation that you would surround yourself with mature advisers who would give the best, most objective advice possible.
Of necessity, this must include a systematic and serious consideration of contrarian opinion. In the case of Iraq, it didn't happen.
Groupthink has triumphed once again, and as far as this independent is concerned, there is no excuse for the shoddiness of the process. If you want my vote, you'd better show that you've fixed this.
Remember al-Qaida?
You know: the criminals who hijacked the planes, crashed them into the buildings and murdered all the people?
I cheered when you went after them in Afghanistan. After 9-11, I wanted to see them wiped off the face of the Earth even if it took generations to do it. I still do.
You haven't yet told a decent story explaining how our detour in Iraq is supposed to advance our cause against international terrorism. Or why you've diverted enormous resources away from bringing the murderers to justice.
Where, exactly, are your priorities?
Isn't the GOP supposed to be the party of sound money and limited government?
What I'm seeing is the tax-and-spend behavior you routinely deplore in the Democrats — without the tax part of it.
A dubiously justified war in Iraq, combined with a large tax cut and now a new space program, makes me wonder where the fiscal conservatives are hiding out.
And, fiercely as you defend it, the USA Patriot Act constitutes activist, not limited, government.
One of the things I look for in my politicians is the recognition that I have the right to be left alone. The Patriot Act, along with your latest initiative to get into the marriage-counseling business, doesn't bode terribly well.
My dream candidate
Lest anyone accuse me of running my own negative mini-campaign, here are a few characteristics of my "dream" candidate. You'll see I'm interested not so much in their positions on issues or how they would solve specific problems as how they would approach the business of governance.
At the risk of banality — character.
For me, this overused word boils down to one thing: doing what's right in the face of significant personal sacrifice. The candidate I vote for should have demonstrated this at least once during his or her public life.
One current candidate who comes to mind is Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who made a decision to fight in an unpopular war, Vietnam, then became a principled critic of that same war after he returned to civilian life.
I don't know yet whether I will be supporting Kerry. But I will be paying attention to his campaign.
Love thy (partisan) enemy.
Or at least ensure contrary opinions get into the mix.
Historically, second-term presidents make a few high-level appointments from members of the opposing party. It's the sign of a confident executive, and good for the decision-making process — an antidote to the groupthink phenomenon I alluded to earlier.
I look for a candidate who has reached out this way during, say, a gubernatorial term. There will be more than enough pressure on a new president to make dumb decisions. Build in all the deliberative firebreaks you can.
Pay as you go.
I'm a believer in limited government, but recognize that new programs will be proposed from time to time. Some are even worthwhile.
My ideal candidate should not only tell me how much it's going to cost, but how he/she expects my fellow citizens and me to foot the bill.
I'm a big boy; tell me how hard you need to hit my wallet.
Dump the "bipartisanship" drivel.
Though I believe in the firewall of divergent views, whenever I hear a presidential candidate start blathering and pandering about bipartisanship, I'd rather chew on crushed glass.
News flash: The president is supposed to be partisan (within reason) and is expected to pursue a partisan agenda.
Save the "B-word" for times of true national peril, like Pearl Harbor or 9-11. Otherwise, give me a happy partisan warrior any day of the week.
This isn't to be confused with acting as a strict ideologue, by the way; I expect the chief executive to actively practice the art of compromise.
Here ends my plea from the "radical center."
As you can see, I'm still searching for my candidate and am likely to be doing so for some time.
For now, I say to our major parties: If you're after this independent's heart and mind this election year, you've got some explaining to do.
The sooner you start, the better.
Bill Broz is a resident of West Seattle. His one departure from independent status was his participation in the 2000 Republican presidential caucus, in support of Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com |
