Support the Person or the Party?

By: Gustavus
Published On: 5/10/2007 11:43:17 AM

My parents grew up in the Deep South, in the early part of the 20th century.  They supported the Democratic Party out of resentment at what the Republicans had done 50 or 75 years earlier, and out of fear of what they might do if they regained control of the state government.  I thought this was extremely stupid.  Why vote for a party?  Didn't it make infinitely more sense to support the best candidate?  The candidate whose views most closely aligned with their views?

It took Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party to make me realize I might be mistaken; and George W. Bush and his toadies in congress to bring me completely to my senses.  The important thing, I came to realize, was not what a man believed, but whether or not he would vote for Democrats or Republicans when congress was electing its own leaders.  If Republican A held views much closer to mine than his opponent Democrat B, I'd still vote for B because we needed to get rid of Bush's "Yes" men in congress.  We needed Democrats who would issue subpoenas, investigate, and try (however futilely) to end the war in Iraq.

This principle, support the party not the person, like all principles can have its exceptions.  Had I lived in Connecticut it would have been almost impossible for me to vote for Joe Lieberman.  I might have had to not vote in that contest.  Fortunately I live in Virginia and the choice between Allen and Webb was a no-brainer.  It is possible that the time will come again when the differences between the parties is so insignificant that we should once again vote for the person, not the party.  But I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

Comments



Leiberman wasn't the Democractic candidate (humanfont - 5/10/2007 2:20:43 PM)
Ned Lamont was the democratic candidate, so if you voted party and not the person you would have been ok. 


Right. (Gustavus - 5/10/2007 6:28:22 PM)
Obviously you are right.  In trying to make my point and end the piece I was a bit sloppy.  Lieberman was running as an independent, but he had said he would continue to caucus as a Democrat.  To vote for Lieberman was to vote for a Democrat-a Democrat who, it was clear, would win.  I could not have voted for him, but would have voted for Lamont, not the Republican Schlesinger.  I should have picked a better example.


Neither comes first (Kathy Gerber - 5/10/2007 7:13:28 PM)
Principle trumps party and person for me.  I always support a certain collection of principles; the party and the person are both vehicles to advance their realization.

Last cycle the driving principle was basic democracy.  Jim Webb was just the right person to help move us in a direction of waking up to what was going on and how badly democracy was threatened in this country.

Party politics has a layer of perpetual power struggles within and without.  Much of the time those power struggles are wasted energy as they are over something not very meaningful for society as a whole. For many that very layer is an addictive game, but it's the part that I find most unattractive.  But it's there and dealing with it is a necessary price of participation.

I'm involved with the party because it is a way to work collectively and fairly directly in the process.  What happens with some groups is that they are organized around a single issue in a passionate way, and that tends to make for (self) marginalization. 

In the party there's enough diversity of interests so that doesn't happen.  At the same time party activity requires teamwork, compromise and a certain level of maturity.  Let's say this year that my pet project isn't front and center.  I can collaborate with others on their pet  projects and hope and trust they will support me in mine down the road should an issue arise.

A side benefit is that I really like the people in our local party. 



I vote the person usually (mkfox - 5/10/2007 8:19:24 PM)
because they may have different beliefs than the national party on issues like gun control, capital punishment, foreign policy, abortion, etc., but sometimes it can be tricky because you may not like the one guy but the other belongs to a party you don't like. For example, last year in solid blue-state Delaware, a lot of voters voted against the state's only congressman, GOP moderate Mike Castle, a very popular ex-governor, as a protest vote against the GOP Congress and Bush administration, not necessarily against Castle himself (he won reelection overwhelmingly). And we all know about the Whitehouse-Chaffee race in Rhode Island. But back to my original point, I'll vote the person, even if it's a third-party if I really don't like the Dem or GOP candidate. Afterall, both parties can't be right but they both can be wrong.


The Party first, the candidate will follow....usually (Dianne - 5/11/2007 12:44:47 PM)
In my lifetime the Democratic Party has stood for and usually delivered on my concept of what a government should do to protect and support it's people. It's quite simple and really so black and white.


Exact Opposite (DanG - 5/13/2007 2:04:24 AM)
I vote for the person.  True, I've opnly been active in politics for a few years now, but in those years I've supported mostly Democrats, with a few Republicans here and there. 2006 was the first time I ever voted straight party-line.

I vote for who I think is best to serve me, regardless of party.  It's an independent streak, sure, but there are plenty of Democrats like myself who vote based on person.  We like to keep the party on its toes, so it doesn't start to stray too far away from mainstream.



Consider This Before You Vote !!!! (Dianne - 5/15/2007 8:40:41 AM)
Please remember that without a Democratic majority in any governing body, Democratic Party principles will not be implemented. 

"...keep the party on its toes," sounds good but voting for a Republican for that reason does not serve to implement the principles and ideas of the Democratic Party.  And people are depending upon the Democratic Party to help bring them out of poverty, to clean the air and waters, help provide for our old age, provide a good public education for all, etc.  Gone are the days of negotiation and reasonable compromise.  Republican principles have been so vastly different than Democrat principles for quite a while now and Republicans seem not to want to be reasoned with.