The K Street Project and Vast Differences in Degree
My parents are political independents, and staunchly so. They raised me to be an independent, frequently repeating the "vote for the man, not for the party" mantra. Though my sympathies currently lie firmly with the Democrats, and though I frequently work for them on campaigns, I really don't consider myself one. I vote for Republicans on the rare occasion when I find one who's better than the competing Democrat, and no one would be happier than me if the Republicans suddenly became a more reasonable than the Democrats.
At any rate, there's an important sense in which I consider myself an independent. But there's an inclination that I often find among independents--my parents for example--that is pernicious. Specifically, the inclination to automatically conclude and assert that the two parties are equally bad. "They ain't one of 'em that's worth a shit--they're all crooks," my dad's often said to me. That's Missouri for "a pox on both their houses."
Problem is, this isn't true. There was a time when the Democrats were the more dishonest of the two parties. But the time of Tammany Hall is long past. There is simply no doubt that the Republicans are currently the more dishonst, power-hungry, and uscrupulous of the two parties. There is no difference in kind between the two parties, of course--both contain honest and intelligent statesmen, both contain vile and venal politicians. But there is currently a vast difference in degree.
Case in point: The K Street Project, which I consider a far bigger threat to American democracy than Osama bin Laden and his lunatic entourage.
Independents have an inclination, I think, to argue like so: there's no difference in kind between the Republicans and the Democrats, so there's no reason to prefer one to the other. But this argument is fallacious. The absence of a difference in kind does not entail the absence of a real and important difference, a significant difference in degree. There's no difference in kind between a fresh apple and a rotting one, but that doesn't mean that there's no reason to prefer one to the other. Yes, there's good and bad in the Democrats and there's good and bad in the Republicans, but--right now, though not forever--the proportion of good to bad in the two parties is vastly different. Democrats are too snug with lobbyists and too beholden to big business--but it took Republicans to institutionalize the corruption and turn the system into a well-oiled machine for eroding the barriers between government and special interests.
Decrying both parties becomes almost a verbal tic with some independents. It's very important that we help such folk realize that, while both houses may deserve some kind of pox, one deserves far more of it than the other.
[Mark Kleiman adds his $0.02.]
My parents are political independents, and staunchly so. They raised me to be an independent, frequently repeating the "vote for the man, not for the party" mantra. Though my sympathies currently lie firmly with the Democrats, and though I frequently work for them on campaigns, I really don't consider myself one. I vote for Republicans on the rare occasion when I find one who's better than the competing Democrat, and no one would be happier than me if the Republicans suddenly became a more reasonable than the Democrats.
At any rate, there's an important sense in which I consider myself an independent. But there's an inclination that I often find among independents--my parents for example--that is pernicious. Specifically, the inclination to automatically conclude and assert that the two parties are equally bad. "They ain't one of 'em that's worth a shit--they're all crooks," my dad's often said to me. That's Missouri for "a pox on both their houses."
Problem is, this isn't true. There was a time when the Democrats were the more dishonest of the two parties. But the time of Tammany Hall is long past. There is simply no doubt that the Republicans are currently the more dishonst, power-hungry, and uscrupulous of the two parties. There is no difference in kind between the two parties, of course--both contain honest and intelligent statesmen, both contain vile and venal politicians. But there is currently a vast difference in degree.
Case in point: The K Street Project, which I consider a far bigger threat to American democracy than Osama bin Laden and his lunatic entourage.
Independents have an inclination, I think, to argue like so: there's no difference in kind between the Republicans and the Democrats, so there's no reason to prefer one to the other. But this argument is fallacious. The absence of a difference in kind does not entail the absence of a real and important difference, a significant difference in degree. There's no difference in kind between a fresh apple and a rotting one, but that doesn't mean that there's no reason to prefer one to the other. Yes, there's good and bad in the Democrats and there's good and bad in the Republicans, but--right now, though not forever--the proportion of good to bad in the two parties is vastly different. Democrats are too snug with lobbyists and too beholden to big business--but it took Republicans to institutionalize the corruption and turn the system into a well-oiled machine for eroding the barriers between government and special interests.
Decrying both parties becomes almost a verbal tic with some independents. It's very important that we help such folk realize that, while both houses may deserve some kind of pox, one deserves far more of it than the other.
[Mark Kleiman adds his $0.02.]
posted by Winston Smith at
10:41 AM
1 Comments:
Decrying both parties is often a way to avoid having to make a choice. I hear it a lot, not from engaged independents like you, WS, rather from disinterested non-voters who want cover for their disengagement.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home