Let’s not forget what change means to some
PETER CALLAGHAN; THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Those who follow American politics – and those who cover it – tend to think in Republican vs. Democrat terms.
Which party will control government come January? Which party is ahead? Which party is to blame?
Certainly a lot of voters see the world through such a partisan lens. But they don’t usually decide who wins. It is the unaffiliated, unaligned voter who picks the winner. These are the people who are ignored until the final weeks, when we focus on independent and undecided voters.
It isn’t that these voters are disinterested. They care about issues that affect them like the economy, health care, schools, roads, public safety and national security. It’s just that they don’t play politics as a hobby the way those on the right and the left do.
So reading these people is more important than tallying Electoral College votes or congressional majority projections. Because what they give, they can – and usually do – take away.
The politicians who begin focusing on unaligned voters in the final weeks usually forget about them as soon as the votes are counted. They make the mistake of thinking they won because voters lurched to the right or to the left when the deciders were usually somewhere in between.
In 1992, Democrats won big and concluded they had a mandate. After the 1994 Republican sweep, the GOP made the same mistake. Both overreached, both got more arrogant and both ended up back in the minority.
Will Democrats, who appear headed for a similar big victory this fall, keep this cycle of self-deception going? Probably.
But between Nov. 4 and Jan. 20 someone should think about what voters were saying, at least the voters who provided the victory margin.
Were they endorsing all things that escaped the mouths of all Democrats? Or were they casting a vote of no confidence in the status quo, and since there’s a Republican in the White House, they voted more frequently for Democrats? Because if they were voting for real change, they might be unhappy with the way either party acts once they get to Washington, D.C.
I was thinking about this last week while listening to U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks debate his Republican challenger Doug Cloud. Dicks had avoided debates before the primary but met Cloud three times and seemed at ease with the format.
But rather than stand in as the Democrat vs. a Republican challenger, Dicks was made to represent all that was wrong with D.C. Cloud, it seems, would have been just as comfortable debating a Republican as long as he or she was an incumbent.
That’s because the Gig Harbor lawyer, though conservative, doesn’t necessarily pin the blame for what ails us on liberals. Instead he points to corruption that stems from a conspiracy between government and Wall Street and special interests.
“I’m running against the ingrained incumbency in Washington, D.C., and on Wall Street,” Cloud said. He referred to a “servile Congress” that is bought by powerful interests that are then rewarded.
“It’s an absolute corruption gone wild,” Cloud said. Dicks defended the institution and touted his own performance. He then pointed out the obvious, that a guy who condemns both parties might find himself pretty lonely should he get elected.
“Maybe he and Ron Paul could be a caucus together,” Dicks said, referring to the Texas congressman and presidential candidate.
But Cloud, more populist and libertarian than anything, doesn’t want anything to do with a political culture he calls corrupt.
Will he win? Unlikely. After 32 years, Dicks seems a good fit for the 6th District and may well surpass his normally overwhelming vote margin.
But those in a new Congress – especially its old members – might want to recognize the Doug Clouds out there who represent a sentiment that change means more than exchanging one party for another.
Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657
peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com
blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics
