In Praise of Party Voters

The word "independence" has such a patriotic ring to it for Americans, it's hard to argue against it. Americans love to think of themselves as independent, doing things on their own, not needing any help, even though that does not reflect reality.

The French visitor de Tocqueville noticed that trait among Americans in the 19th century and wondered if there was enough glue in the new country's society to hold it together. He concluded that there was, largely because of the off-setting tendency of Americans to join associations.

Had de Tocqueville dropped down into 21st century America recently, he would have felt right at home. The same talk about go-it-alone Americans is still in the air, whether it's in CNN broadcaster Lou Dobb's book Independent's Day or closer to home in Mike Mallot's recent column in the Livingston Press and Argus, titled "In Praise of Independent Voters."

Both writers tend to denigrate people who identify with a particular political party. For some reason, they think identifying with a party means that people aren't thinking. Apparently, they think that party identification is like religion -- people are baptized into it as infants, raised in it, and that's it. But joining a party is a choice, based on fundamental beliefs, not a few hot-button issues that come and go. There are no party bosses ordering you to stay in the party you were "baptized" into.

Picking a party means thinking about what you believe concerning the nature of society and the role of our government in that society. Is government's only role to keep us safe from outside threats? Does it have a broader role, helping all its citizens in their pursuit of happiness?

Picking a party means settling in your own mind what terms like equality and fairness mean when applied to the nitty-gritty of government policy regarding regulation of the economy, taxation, access to good schools and health care, and tolerance of others. That means having a core set of beliefs that one can rely on when trying to decide what to do in those areas.

Picking a party also means holding your party to those core beliefs. By voting for candidates in primaries, party members make sure those who are nominated are sticking to what they believe are the parties' core beliefs. When non-party members are able to participate, they may be less concerned with the organization's core beliefs and may be making their selections based on other criteria, such as who they "like" the most.

The entry of non-party members means the candidate-picking process becomes somewhat distorted. John McCain wins Republican primaries only when independents vote for him, meaning the Republican Party could end up with a nominee that its own members do not support. Since independents don't want to participate in party work, that means Republicans will be expected to pony up the money to pay for McCain's ads and campaign staff, and to provide the volunteer labor for his get out the vote effort. Furthermore, while party members do the work for a candidate they did not pick, independents will be home by themselves "thinking" -- possibly about whether they will even vote for the candidate they helped nominate.

The process of governing also becomes somewhat distorted when voters decide they "like" a candidate from Party A for the executive branch but a candidate from Party B for the legislative branch. Because they "like" these two people with vastly different philosophies, they somehow "think" that means these two polar opposites are going to be able to work together, without sacrificing their core beliefs. Can you say "Gridlock"?

Suppose we did away with all political parties and made all the lawmakers independents. That's the logical extension of Dobbs' position. What would the Michigan Legislature look like? You thought we had chaos last year? Welcome to chaos to the n-th degree. Who would be in charge of the agenda? Who would be speaker? Who would chair the committees and decide which bills would be debated? Each of those would be up for grabs every single day, based on who the majority of lawmakers "liked" that day. Horse trading and political deal making would be multiplied exponentially from what it is today unless lawmakers sorted themselves into groups based on their fundamental beliefs. Which is what they did, a long time ago.

Now, this isn't what I "think." This is what I know. I did the hard work of thinking about what I really believe about the role of government and decided I was a Democrat. And I decided I wanted to elect people who believe the same way I do, not people that I "like" the most (whatever that means).

Then I took the further step of deciding I wanted to work in the party, helping make sure that the party hews to its core beliefs and that our country lives up to its promise. It was a tough decision. It takes a lot of time. There are things I'd rather be doing. But there aren't many that are more important.

Think about it.