Party like it’s 1849
Mark Pascal agonizes over the possibility of Congress being overrun with small-i independents:
It may be possible to see the growth of independent candidates that can win with just a plurality in 3-way elections is a distinct possibility for the U.S. Unfortunately, the results on governing our country would be anyone’s guess. After some reflection, most Republicans and Democrats might prefer a known opponent to an undulating group of people whose political, economic and social views are completely chimerical and unpredictable from issue to issue, and who have no party loyalty whatsoever.
“Most” and “might” are weasel words, and not in a good way, either. None of our parties are permanent organizations, despite their best efforts, and I refuse to treat them as such. We may yet again — if we don’t already — have Know-Nothings and Whigs. But Smitty’s much more to the point:
[C]himerical? What chimericals are you smoking? Parties merit as much loyalty as they received Constitutional mention: 0. We’re all one 330-million strong United States party, where Federal matters are concerned, and 50 separate parties below the 10th Amendment waterline.
Oh, yeah, the Constitution. Remember when politicians were expected to read it and understand it? Me either. But then I’m only 55.
McGehee »
31 October 2009 · 1:08 pm
I’ll say this: without party labels to go by, voters will have to actually pay attention to —
Aw, who am I kidding? They’ll vote for the best-looking bumper sticker.
miriam »
1 November 2009 · 8:41 pm
Bring back the Whigs.