January 12, 2005
Supply and Demand
More than a few Team-Blue-regulars have commented on their surprise that someone on ‘Team Red’ would give express outrage like this. In thinking about it, isn’t that the way it should be? Shouldn’t the calls for accountability come from within the party? Obviously that hasn’t been happening, and it’s resulted in both sides pointing fingers every time scandal breaks.
With the breakdown of internal regulation, every political scandal boils down to mere posturing and a lack of accountability on both sides. Proper accusations from the opposite side will be met with cries of "You first! You clean your house, and _then_ we'll clean ours." It finally settles into tit for tat and there's no room for principles there. For evidence, look no further than the back and forth in our own backyard.
We, as voters, ought to vote not only on how our representatives vote in Washington, we need to consider how they've addressed scandal within their own ranks. If a senator will not distance him/herself from the scandalous actions of their colleagues, they are likely involved in similar actions themselves, or they lack the will to insist on upright behaviour. In either case, the voter reaction should be the same.
The main problem is a voting public uninterested in anything more complicated than what can fit on a bumper sticker. Informed voters, no matter how well intentioned have influence limited to their proportion within the whole of their party. As a result, I don't believe we'll see a change in Washington accountability until we see a change in the two party system. There are lots of non-participating, eligible voters who are alienated by the limited choices, or disillusioned with national politics all together, possibly resulting from the lack of accountability.
Just look at the political battle which was Election 2004, a lot of republicans wanted to hold Bush accountable for his first term, but what could they have done? Voted for someone who went against a lot of the things they stand for? Not much chance of that. This is the reason Washington and its corporate interests have no plan for changing the number of players in the arena, because voters will push accountability to the back seat when given few options.
Accountability is much like economics, until there's sufficient demand, there'll be insufficient supply; unfortunately, the demand here seems to be measured by volume of voters, not voices.
Posted by Andrew Parker at January 12, 2005 01:12 AMI couldn’t agree more. In too many ways. politics has become a semi annual sporting event for most Americans. You know what side you’re on based on what your voter reg. card says, and you just restate, again and again whatever the message is coming out your party.
The media isn’t any help either. As we talked about yesterday, the MOST that one can hope for is ‘both sides of the issue’: the messages being put out by either the Dem. or Rep. party talking heads. The spectrum of acceptable debate in the US has been stripped down to, ‘you can believe this line, or alternatly, you can believe this line’.
I’m honesly not sure where a solution comes from. With both parties so deeply entrenched into every aspect of the political scene, they really dont have any motivation to change. Ironicly, they also dont really have any motivation to force any real change out of the other party either. At this point, both are largly based on NOT being what the other one is. It’s a sad co-dependant relationship.
Well put, justin. Just look at the numbers from November’s election, and how many votes were ‘against the other guy’ rather than for their own candidate. I’m hoping to see an increased role of the internet to bring down the huge sums of cash needed to run for office. That combined with voter frustration with the limited choice provided will hopefully result in some independent representatives in the somewhat near future.
Posted by: AParker at January 12, 2005 01:10 PM
I believe that most of the 51% who voted for Bush are actually sane and reasonable people. But I have zero trust in their leadership - the posting above is one reason why. In Congress at least, the Repubs have been very careful about keeping a united front and keeping their own people in line. The one thing us Dems really worry about is having the Republican party be taken over by 51% of 51% who want to make very radical and reactionary moves.
I applaud you for your efforts to police your own. Make sure you keep it up - it’s clear that they don’t intend to listen to us Blue-teamers. And keep watching them. Politicians are like small children and the sea, never turn your back.
Posted by: William Cohen at January 12, 2005 02:27 PMThe main deal here isn’t that voters are disinterested, but uninspired. You can’t expect people to remain involved forever, when the leaders fail to be eloquent, inspiring, and wise. Much as nobody likes elitist snobs, we do like the idea of being lead by somebody who does seem better than the rest of us.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 12, 2005 03:02 PM
