|
|
Voice |
|
|
Write:
|
Time was when political parties had clearer identities. The old Democratic Party was tagged with the workingman—the little guy who went out every morning with his lunch pale or lunch money to a time clock or maybe a desk. He paid his bills and kept up his union dues if he worked at a plant or in an industry where labor needed to be represented. The only stock he knew anything about was livestock, the chickens or pigs he might be raising. The old Republican Party was considered to be the businessman’s party. They were considered to be composed of the man who knew what stock was and owned it. He was the guy who created the jobs the Democrat took his wages from, but didn’t appreciate. He wanted the breaks a friendly government could give him—protective tariffs, tax incentives or no taxes. It was his job to keep the economy going and to put money in his own pocket. There was no clamoring of either party to be identified with a religious sect. It was understood that everyone went to church, unless he didn’t want to. And that was his business. There certainly wasn’t any candidate who claimed to be more religious than the opponent. Homosexuality wasn’t on the political agenda. Everyone knew someone who was a bit different. That was a person’s own business. It wasn’t a matter for public scrutiny, certainly not something you went to a movie to see. No one courted the homosexual vote. No one refused it. There was no battle over the environment. There were no public marches favoring pro-live or pro-choice. After all, wasn’t everybody supposed to be for saving the environment and it wouldn’t make sense for anyone to say he was against life. Things change. In a comparatively few political years, the Democratic Party, the party of the workingman, has simply tried to be the party for everyone. They take on every splinter group’s cause and make it an issue. They have tried to be all things to all people, which leaves them with a diffused identity, one that defies definition. When the war in Iraq became an issue, the Democratic Party couldn’t find a stand to take. They felt it would be unpatriotic to oppose it. And they would be criticized if they favored it. Their spokesmen ranged from Teddy Kennedy against any aspect of the war and Joe Lieberman marching in stride with President George W. Bush. If Kennedy and Lieberman represent the Democratic Party, it’s as hard to find their stand on the war as it is on other issues. Of course, this is the same Joe Lieberman who was chose to run for Al Gore’s vice president, but didn’t have enough faith in his own ticket to not run for reelection to the Senate. The Republican Party has gone just as far in the other direction. A nearly visible litmus has become operational to allow membership into the party. This applies especially demanding of candidates. Religion has become a prominent issue. You have to be an extremist. And it’s a political sin to accept any support from the working classes. The word “labor” ranks with the worst profanity a candidate could consider using. If the party demigods have their way, only a blue blood who has never soiled his hands working might be admitted. The 2006 race for the US Senate in Tennessee to fill Sen. Bill Frist’s position is an example. Van Hilleary caters to the far right. But Ed Bryant has the support of pro-life people. Such an endorsement is good for a candidate, but it theoretically puts the pro-choice against him. And every vote counts. No one ever considered that Bob Corker was anything but a conservative Republican. But the fanatics of the fringe at the far right are trying to knock him off as a candidate by saying he isn’t extreme enough. The little group carrying around the refining political system wants only candidates who can pass their analysis. And it’s awful to them that they proclaim Bob Corker once accepted money from a labor union. There’s never been a candidate who openly or privately didn’t accept contributions from the workingman. If these critics want to shun the workingman’s vote, they can hang it up. But to them, it’s more important to espouse the extreme causes than to win an election. Somehow this group has forgotten that a candidate is supposed to go into office and serve all the people, not just a select few. The independent voter, the undecided person still carries the power in elections, from the local level all the way to the White House. Any party that ignores this is doomed. If either party wants to win elections, they must find an identity that the average person can accept, not too far to the right or left. The extreme right of the Republican Party needs to back up and take a look at the constituency. Even diehard Republicans are looking west to a Democratic potential candidate. That man is Harold Ford.
|
